MAPS3 Oklahoma City Streetcar Economic Development … › assets › files › planning › Economic Developm… · 2 MAPS3 Oklahoma City Streetcar – Economic Development Strategy

MAPS3 Oklahoma City Streetcar Economic Development Assessment

26 November, 2013 Prepared by Shiels Obletz Johnsen ED Hovee & Company Subconsultants to Jacobs Engineering, Inc. For The Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority

i MAPS3 Oklahoma City Streetcar – Economic Development Strategy – November, 2013 Prepared by Shiels Obletz Johnsen and ED Hovee & Company

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary

MAPS3 Streetcar Route Design Options 3

Potential Redevelopment Sites 5

OKC Development Community Perspectives 6

OKC Regional Growth 6

Development Projection Assumptions 7

Economic Development Potential (Streetcar Premium) 8

Projections 9

Conclusions and Next Steps 10

Attachment – Land Use and Economic Development Assessment, ED Hovee & Co.

Preliminary Assessment Findings 2

Streetcar & Economic Development Experience 3

OKC Streetcar Study Area Profile 6

Regional Planning & Development Context 16

Streetcar Development Projects 28

Forecast Analysis Approach 38

With & Without Streetcar Development Scenarios 42

Value Capture Opportunities 46

Appendix A: Preparer Profile 48

Appendix B: Land Use Classificiations 49

Appendix C: Non-Assessed Property Categorization 50

Appendix D: Regional & Downtown Base Case Forecasts 51

Appendix E: The Streetcar-Economic Development Nexus 53

Appendix F: Detailed Streetcar Zone & Segment Data Tables 59

ii MAPS3 Oklahoma City Streetcar – Economic Development Strategy – November, 2013 Prepared by Shiels Obletz Johnsen and ED Hovee & Company

List of Figures (Hovee Memo)

Page

Figure 1 Oklahoma City Historic Streetcar Routes 3

Figure 2 2013 Route Framework & Core to Shore Benefit Areas 7

Figure 3 Existing Conditions of Streetcar Corridor Benefit Areas Evaluated 10

Figure 4 Recent Development Experience 12

Figure 5 Improvement to Land (I:L) Value Distribution (2011) 13

Figure 6 Site Development and Redevelopment Status (2011) 14

Figure 7 Downtown Study Area Neighborhood Districts 17

Figure 8 Downtown Study Area Potential FAR 20

Figure 9 Housing & Employment Forecasts (to 2027) 24

Figure 10 Downtown Oklahoma City Streetcar Development Projects 29

Figure 11 Oklahoma City Streetcar Development Projects 30

Figure 12 Development Interviews 31

Figure 13 With & Without Streetcar Development Scenarios (10 Years) 42

Figure 14 Added Housing & Employment Potential (10 Years) 44

Figure 15 Cumulative 10-Year Value Capture Potential 46

Figure 16 TAZ-Based Forecast Scenario (Without Streetcar to 2017) 52

Figure 17 Comparative Case Study Metro Area Population Growth Rates 54

Figure 18 With Streetcar Development Comparison; Portland, Seattle, Tampa 55

Figure 19 2013 Framework Segment Existing Condition Allocations (as of 2011) 59

Figure 20 2013 Framework Segment Existing Condition Allocations (as of 2011) 60

Figure 21 2013 Framework Segment Forecast Allocations (2017 – 27) 61

1 MAPS3 Oklahoma City Streetcar – Economic Development Strategy – November, 2013 Prepared by Shiels Obletz Johnsen and ED Hovee & Company

Executive Summary

The Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA) has engaged Jacobs Engineering to provide planning support for Oklahoma City’s Modern Streetcar Project and its potential future extensions. This Assessment has been funded by a TIGER II planning grant and managed by COTPA. The report has been developed in collaboration with the MAPS 3 planning effort. The purpose of this effort is to assess the economic growth potential of the MAPS3 Streetcar corridor during the first ten years of operation. Shiels Obletz Johnsen and ED Hovee and Company have been hired by Jacobs to prepare this Economic Development Assessment to evaluate streetcar transit’s connection to economic and land development opportunities beyond what was known or understood during the Alternatives Analysis process completed in 2011. Work on this supplemental effort began in January of 2013 and includes integration of updated growth projections, developer perspectives and the impacts of streetcar on development investments. This information, in turn, will be used to create an updated baseline for projecting streetcar ridership.


Streetcar’s Legacy in Oklahoma City. Streetcars have played a significant role in shaping American cities:

Providing access and increasing value to adjacent properties

Creating a network of public and private investment that supports higher density development, and

Creating a structure to generate tax revenues to fund paved streets, sidewalks and drainage

This historic partnering of public and private interests, joint development, joint marketing and multimodal coordination is as relevant today as it was when Oklahoma’s first streetcar system connected such places as Belle Isle, Lincoln Park, Capitol Hill, Stockyards, SW 25th Street, and the old fairgrounds.

“Streetcars ‘connect’ neighborhoods by linking up activities, destinations and the regional transit network. They ‘shape’ neighborhoods by stimulating redevelopment, supporting active uses, promoting public-private investments and creating places where people want to be. Ultimately, the streetcar is about the pedestrian.” David Taylor, HDR, Inc; Street Smart, Streetcars and Cities in the Twenty-first Century.

Access and circulation are important considerations for development investors. Convenience, reliability and safety are critical to assuring the viability of a particular travel choice within a greater transportation system. Convenient and reliable service with operating hours and service frequencies that support customer needs reinforce the economic investments along the corridor. Streetcar service elevates the importance of pedestrians by extending the short trips that can be made on foot as part of the overall system. To this end, Streetcar can serve as a transit system enhancer, expanding the reach of the regional transit system with connections to destinations such as the Hudson Avenue Transit Center and the planned Transit Hub at Santa Fe station.


2011 Locally Preferred Alternative Streetcar Alignment

2013 Recommended Route Framework (Zeta)

MAPS3 Streetcar Route Design Options In 2011, COTPA and its partners completed the Greater Downtown OKC Circulator Alternatives Analysis (AA). The result of that analysis was the designation of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) streetcar corridor. The study area for this Assessment generally follows the 2011 LPA route serving Midtown/Downtown Core/Bricktown identified in the Alternatives Analysis. During the course of developing the Assessment, the Core to Shore district was added given that area’s significant economic development potential in close proximity to the Downtown Core.

In 2013, the Jacobs Engineering team conducted a “fresh eyes” review of the 2011 LPA corridor designation involving multiple public agency and community participation. Route alternatives connecting Midtown, the Downtown Core and Bricktown were evaluated and a Recommended Route Framework (Zeta) was approved by Oklahoma City Council on September 24, 2013. Considered with this analysis are land use and economic development opportunities associated with the 2013 Recommended Route Framework and future extension to the Core to Shore (C2S) area. While the 2013 Framework benefit area varies somewhat from that of a 2011 Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), economic development opportunities are similar to what would be expected for area potentially served by the LPA. The 2013 Recommended Route Framework emerged from an evaluation of multiple alternatives’ capacity for:

- Serving key destinations - Integrating with the existing transportation network - Economic development - Optimizing system operation and potential for

expansion - Technical considerations

Economic development was identified as a high priority for route selection during the Fresh Eyes Workshop in February of 2013. As a result, the economic development criteria were given added weight to reflect their importance. Information gained from developer interviews, public agency development perspectives and the Hovee land assessment (attached) were used as background for the economic evaluations.


The Midtown/Downtown Core/Bricktown route options also identified future opportunities for system expansion to the Oklahoma Health Center, Core to Shore district/neighborhoods to the south, the State Capitol and NW 23rd Street. The economic evaluation of the MAPS3 Streetcar route alternatives was based upon the qualitative development attributes of the sub-districts along the route. Each sub-district has unique economic development characteristics in terms of the nature of the development opportunities, property ownerships, design character and economic potential including:

Midtown: Generally small property ownerships with the exception of St. Anthony’s Hospital. High level of near-term developer interest for residential development on larger vacant parcels. There is additional infill development interest for smaller retail, housing, office projects with property assembly required. Midtown URA public discussion is advancing; identifies actions and priorities for promoting public private partnerships and investment. Hudson/Harvey Avenues: Larger redevelopment opportunity sites near NW 10th Street in Midtown; major office development being proposed at southern end of streetcar route. Existing development has limited pedestrian orientation at the street level.

Broadway/Robinson Avenues: Strong retail district along Broadway with engaged business

leadership. Opportunity for restoration/enhancement in upper floors of existing buildings. Predominately built-up area with few large redevelopment parcels suited to higher density mixed-use development with the exception of a few sites east of Broadway. Downtown Core: Highest concentration of major employers/employment. Greatest existing public and private investment value. Concentration of visitor facilities in the southeast section. Public institutions/facilities generally located on western side. Bricktown: High opportunity for private investment that could be influenced by streetcar construction. Public investment in construction, expansion and management of the canal serves as an amenity for future development. Large parcels in single ownership; several have active development interest. There is potential for improving pedestrian environment on under-developed blocks with street-oriented, higher density development. Deep Deuce: Historic neighborhood with considerable new higher-density residential investment. Limited market for ground-floor retail to date, but may come with added residential concentrations. Within walking distance of Downtown Core and Bricktown. Multiple redevelopment opportunity parcels extending from the neighborhood to the north with some land assembly needed. Core To Shore: Near- to mid-term park construction combined with mid- to long-term development build-out have high potential for leveraging streetcar investment within a walkable, mixed-use community. Public investment in construction and management of the park serves as amenity for future development.

Oklahoma Health Center: Major medical teaching facility, hospital and related medical and office facilities and associated surface parking lots. Large areas controlled by the OHC and City.


Ratio of Improvements Value to Land Value of

properties within the study area

Opportunity to implement plans to support higher density redevelopment. A Land Use Assessment is underway to determine economic development potential from streetcar.

The MAPS3 Streetcar Economic Development Assessment consists of two parts being prepared sequentially. This first document assesses the economic potential of providing service along the 2011 LPA and in the Core to Shore area. Work on a second part is underway to assess the Oklahoma Health Center area. The results of this work will be summarized in a separate memo by ED Hovee and Company.

Potential Redevelopment Sites

To identify Streetcar’s potential impacts on development, this Assessments takes into consideration the amount of re-developable land along the route. Identifying “soft” parcels. Vacant and underused properties have the greatest likelihood of being redeveloped. One method to identify those properties is to quantify the proportional value of the buildings to the value of the land. For example, if a building is valued at $300,000 and the lot is valued at $100,000, the Improvement : Land ratio would be 3 to 1. Non-assessed properties. In generating the Improvement to Land Value information for the study area, the available tax assessor data included a significant portion (approximately 33%) of the land area within the benefit area was designated to be non-assessed properties. These properties include uses such as public facilities, parks, churches, hospitals and schools. Some of these properties have the potential of redeveloping in the future, however. To provide a more accurate assessment of the redevelopment potential in the study area, representatives of COTPA, the City, The Alliance for Economic Development and Downtown OKC staff, provided assistance to identify the non-assessed properties by breaking them into three categories: those with major public facilities and unlikely to redevelop in the next ten to fifteen years; larger opportunity sites where redevelopment or reuse could reasonably occur prior to 2027, and; other, smaller exempt properties generally assumed not to be available for redevelopment before 2027.


Sites where development is being actively

pursued 2013 – 2016.

Oklahoma City Area Regional Transportation

Study Area (OCARTS)

OKC Development Community Perspectives – Planned Development

Private and public sector development interests were interviewed in January 2013 as part of the Assessment (Hovee memo, Planned Development Activity section). Virtually all of those interviewed were bullish on prospects for both near- and mid-term development opportunities – both generally throughout the region and more specifically in the downtown area. The more that local development interests learn about streetcar experience elsewhere, the more they are intrigued by its potential for Oklahoma City. The rediscovery of urban living was the most widely cited turnaround in market prospects for the downtown area. A summary of the developer and development agency interviews is included in the Planned Development Activity section of the Hovee memo.

OKC Regional Growth

The Oklahoma City Area Regional Transportation Study (OCARTS) area includes 40 cities and towns located within the more urbanized portion of the six-county metro area. OCARTS projections of population, households and employment appear to have underestimated growth within the downtown Oklahoma City area. For the streetcar Assessment, the OCARTS forecasts have been adjusted through a collaborative provisional multi-agency planning process to establish a baseline assumption for projecting potential growth during the first ten years of MAPS3 Streetcar operation.

Oklahoma City regional population is forecast to grow by 10% between 2017 through 2027: Regional population 2017 1,231,000 Regional population 2027 1,359,000 Total regional population growth: 128,000 Further background for these figures in Appendix D and Figure 16 of the attached Hovee memo.


Development Projections/Assumptions The forecasting approach used in this Assessment is intended to identify reasonably achievable growth projections for streetcar-related development. The projections integrate experiences of other streetcar cities as well as the specific conditions present in Oklahoma City. Other Cities’ Experience. In communities where economic investment has been made a priority along a modern streetcar route, properties have developed above what would have occurred absent a streetcar line. In Oklahoma City, that rate is projected to be 4.5 times greater within 1 block and 2.0 times greater within 2-3 blocks of streetcar (Hovee memo Appendix E). These economic benefits have been documented in terms of added business and residential potential, development and valuations. Re-developable Land and Current Zoning. The ¼ mile “benefit area” of the MAPS3 Streetcar 2011 LPA totals 546 acres of land which have been evaluated for their likelihood for redevelopment based upon a review of the tax assessed improvements to land valuation (I:L) or “improvement to land value ratio” (Hovee Memo, Figure 5). This approach is used to allocate growth and confirm there is an adequate supply of appropriately-zoned and re-developable land available without requiring significant land use amendments. Adjusting the Growth Projection. Given Oklahoma City’s accelerated growth rate over the past 5 years, it was determined that available data for jobs, dwelling units and growth rates differed substantially from current conditions. While the Associated Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG) is preparing to update this data, the results would not be available within the timeframe of completing this Assessment. To provide a more accurate interim forecast, Jacobs Engineering convened a group of regional and local modeling experts from ACOG, the City of Oklahoma City, COTPA, The Alliance and Downtown OKC to identify a reasonable set of provisional forecasting assumptions. The results of this discussion are described in the Hovee memo and used as the basis of the redevelopment and ridership forecasts. It is anticipated that this information will be further refined as part of ACOG’s future planning efforts.


Source: Land Use & Economic Development Assessment memo; ED Hovee & Co. Figures 16 (housing) and 13 (commercial SF). With streetcar scenario is not guaranteed but achievable with public-private partnership.

Streetcar Premium The streetcar economic “premium” for the MAPS3 Streetcar route has projected as the development that could occur with streetcar minus the development that is anticipated without streetcar. This streetcar premium effect has been calculated by looking at the changes in both investment amounts and development density. Based upon this “premium”, the MAPS3 streetcar has been found to have the potential for supporting significantly greater economic investment and development density within two to three blocks of the alignment for the first ten years after streetcar opening (2017 – 2027). This investment model results in a more efficient use of urban land resources in close proximity to high quality transit service. Properties directly adjacent to the line can expect to be most directly benefited – but with discernible increases in development activity up to about ¼ mile. The degree of benefit realized relates directly to the willingness of a typical resident, employee, customer and/or visitor to walk to their home, place of business or shopping, recreation and/or lodging destination. OKC has a clear sense of the role that the public sector can play in shaping the future of the city. The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, for example, takes the lead in managing multiple urban renewal districts in downtown and surrounding areas. COTPA, the Water Trust, and the City play key roles in provision of the needed infrastructure. These organizational and financial resources, coupled with strong and continuing voter support for MAPS projects, have the potential to provide the foundation for extending success along the MAPS3 Streetcar route.

Midtown / Downtown / Bricktown Streetcar Premium 2017 - 2027

Housing Units

Commercial SF

2027 Without Streetcar

847 1,760,000

2027 With Streetcar Premium

4503 2,080,000

Total Growth 5350 3,840,000


Source: Land Use and Economic Development Assessment Memo, ED Hovee & Co., Figure 14; commercial excludes tax-exempt space.

Source: Land Use and Economic Development Assessment Memo, ED Hovee & Co., Figure 14.

Projections Building upon the demonstrated successes of streetcar communities across the country and integrating those same principles with development conditions in Oklahoma City, it is possible to project potential housing and commercial growth within ¼ mile of streetcar service. Based upon the methodologies described in this Assessment and the attached Hovee memo, residential and commercial growth projections have been identified for both the Midtown/Downtown Core/Bricktown route as well as the Core To Shore route. Core To Shore During the course of preparing this Assessment, the Core to Shore district was incorporated into the study area given that area’s significant economic development potential in close proximity to the Downtown Core. The MAPS3 Public Park is a regional facility and central component of the development of the Core to Shore district. The plan for the district prioritizes economic investment to create a “dense, diverse urban residential community” that supports walking, bicycling and transit access to work and access to recreation, open space, cultural resources, shopping and entertainment. Land acquisition for the Public Park as well as redevelopment sites is underway. A market study for the area was recently initiated as a critical next step in advancing development in the district. The Economic Development Assessment prepared by ED Hovee (attached) included the Core to Shore area in the development forecast to demonstrate, on a general level, the potential effect of streetcar in redevelopment. The near-term construction of the Public Park is anticipated to generate streetcar ridership for major civic events and public gatherings. The presence of vacant land and very low intensity uses in the surrounding areas, however, limit ridership growth until development occurs around the Park. The area is ripe for positive change due to high real estate investment potential, close proximity to the downtown core, the City’s pursuit of a shared development vision for a walkable, mixed-use community and the financial resources to help implement that vision. Given these conditions, it is recommended that the Core to Shore development planning, including the Public Park as a central element, be given high priority for guiding the Streetcar alignment location for this district.

Midtown/Downtown/Bricktown Projections with Streetcar 2017 - 2027

Housing Units

Commercial SF

2017 With Streetcar 4362 15,910,000

2027 With Streetcar 9712 19,750,000

Total Growth 5350 3,840,000

Core To Shore Projections with Streetcar 10 Years

Housing Units

Commercial SF

Year 0 709 790,000

Year 10 2154 1,390,000

Total Growth 1445 600,000


A recurring design theme in the plans for the Downtown Convention Center is providing a building that is oriented to and provides access from all surrounding streets. This design orientation will support the integration of the streetcar as the specific streetcar station location and design are advanced in upcoming engineering phases.

Conclusions and Next Steps Streetcar cities across the country are demonstrating the benefits of a community-building approach that focuses on redevelopment of vacant and underused parcels within a streetcar route. With a proactive development strategy, Oklahoma City has the potential of capturing ten percent of the region’s projected residential growth and eleven percent of the region’s job growth and shaping it into a vibrant, walkable mixed-use community. Once the final streetcar alignment has been set, it is recommended that an Economic Development Plan be developed to build upon local economic and development opportunities identified in this Assessment. The intent would be to identify a collaborative effort involving stakeholder agencies, organizations and individuals to promote desired development along the streetcar route. The Plan would identify:

- Development strategy with priority opportunities and actions - Organizational structure to coordinate development efforts near streetcar - Financing tools

Attachments Land Use & Economic Development Assessment (ED Hovee memo)

E. D. Hovee& Company, LLC

2408 Main Street • P.O. Box 225 • Vancouver, WA 98666(360) 696-9870 • (503) 230-1414 • Fax (360) 696-8453

E-mail: [email protected]

Economic and Development Services

MMEEMMOORRAANNDDUUMMTo: Kim Knox, Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc.

From: Eric Hovee & Andrea Logue

Subject: Oklahoma City Modern Streetcar ProjectLand Use & Economic Development Assessment

Date: November 26, 2013

On behalf of Jacobs Engineering, Shiels Obletz Johnsen, COTPA, and the City of Oklahoma City,this land use and economic development assessment of the proposed Oklahoma City ModernStreetcar Project has been prepared by E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC (EDH).1 The purpose of thisreport is to evaluate existing land use conditions and to quantify potential development withinthe first 10 years of inaugurating modern streetcar services in Oklahoma City (OKC).

Considered with this analysis are land use and economic development opportunities associatedwith a 2013 Recommended Route Framework and future extension to the Core to Shore (C2S)area. While the 2013 Framework benefit area varies somewhat from that of a 2011 LocallyPreferred Alignment (LPA), economic development opportunities are similar to what would beexpected for the area potentially served by the 2011 LPA.2 Development opportunities relatedto a potential Oklahoma Health Center (OHC) alignment will be evaluated as a separate memo.

This analysis addresses economic development potentials along the corridor without streetcar(or as a base case forecast) and, alternatively, with streetcar.3 Topics covered include:

Preliminary Assessment FindingsStreetcar & Economic Development Experience

OKC Streetcar Study Area ProfileRegional Planning & Development Context

Streetcar Development ProjectsForecast Analysis Approach

With & Without Streetcar Development ScenariosValue Capture Opportunities

Appendices provided added detail regarding E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC as preparer of thisreport, land use classification data, the process of categorizing non-assessed properties,regional and downtown area base case forecast data, a brief summary of streetcar orienteddevelopment nationally, and streetcar segment analysis for the 2013 Route Framework.

E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for SOJ and Jacobs Engineering:Oklahoma City Modern Streetcar Project Land Use & Economic Development Assessment Page 2

PPRREELLIIMMIINNAARRYY AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT FFIINNDDIINNGGSS

The purpose of this assessment is to review existing conditions and to quantify potentialdevelopment within the first 10 years of streetcar system opening (or from 2017-2027) for the2013 Route Framework and for a similar time frame with possible extension to the C2S area.4

What follows is a summary assessment for land use and economic development findings.

Streetcar & Economic Development Experience. Like most major American cities,Oklahoma City once had an extensive streetcar system. Despite loss of most streetcar systemsin the 1950s, streetcar has experienced a resurgence with 26 operating systems in the U.S. andCanada and 86 cities planning streetcar for better transit service and supportive development.

OKC Streetcar Study Area Profile. On a preliminary basis, the 2013 Route Framework areahas been identified as running east-west from Bricktown to the downtown core, then north-south on a Broadway/Robinson or similar couplet, then east-west through Midtown. As in othercities, the primary development benefit is expected to occur within one block of the alignment(Zone A) with secondary benefits extending about another two blocks (Zone B). Also consideredare longer term development opportunities with potential future extension to the C2S area –but with no specific alignment identified for evaluation to date.

Regional Planning & Development Context. While incorporating findings from multipledowntown area market and planning studies, this analysis is most reliant on housing andemployment forecasts as revised from the Oklahoma City Area Regional Transportation Study(OCARTS) base case projections for the 2013 Route Framework and C2S areas without streetcar.

Planned Development Activity. Considerable development activity (involving over 50identified projects) is currently planned for the downtown OKC area. Interviews withdevelopment interests indicate that while some projects are already well along in planning,others could be facilitated in terms of scope or timing with streetcar service introduction.

Forecast Analysis Approach. Using revised forecast and GIS data coupled with related cityexperience, this analysis provides without streetcar (base case) and with streetcar developmentscenarios – distinguished between residential, commercial and exempt/public land uses.5

With & Without Streetcar Development Scenarios. In the without streetcar scenario, the2013 Route Framework benefit area is associated with about 2.9 million square feet of addeddevelopment as compared with as much as 10+ million square feet with streetcar over a 10-year forecast horizon – assuming streetcar opening in 2017. The C2S area goes from close to900,000 square feet of development in the base case to potentially 2.7 million square feet withstreetcar – over an as yet unspecified 10 year time frame after possible streetcar introduction.

Value Capture Opportunity. 2013 Framework area property tax revenue results in a 10-year cumulative total of an added $21 million without streetcar to $94 million with streetcar.C2S area property tax revenue increases from a base case of an added $9 million to $27 millionwith streetcar after 10 years. Sales tax revenue potential is similarly increased, especially forC2S if destination retail is facilitated with C2S plan implementation and streetcar extension.


SSTTRREEEETTCCAARR && EECCOONNOOMMIICC DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT EEXXPPEERRIIEENNCCEE

In conducting this and similar streetcar-related development assessments, the question oftenarises: what experience demonstrates the development leveraging successes and lessonslearned from streetcar elsewhere across the U.S.?

This discussion begins with a brief review of prior historical experience in Oklahoma City withstreetcar and related development. This is followed by a summary of U.S. experience with re-introduction of streetcar systems in recent years.

Oklahoma CityStreetcarExperienceAlmost every majorAmerican city once had anextensive streetcarsystem. Oklahoma City isno exception.

With a franchise fromOklahoma City, theMetropolitan Railwayinaugurated streetcarservice on two lines in1902 – the University (BlueLine) and the Maywood(Red Line). A majorimpetus to formation of apublic transportationsystem was “due to fourseparate housing additionsbeing developed betweenNW 10th and NW 23rd” at atime when most people inOklahoma City “stillwalked to work.”6

In 1904, the MetropolitanRailway was renamed asthe City Railway Company.The system was renamed again in 1907 as the Oklahoma Railway Company (ORC). In 1908, twoof the original investors – Anton Classen and John Shartel – built a power plant to assurereliable electric service to the City’s burgeoning trolley system. By 1912, streetcars ran on a

Figure 1. Oklahoma City Historic Streetcar Routes

Source: As provided by Jacobs Engineering.


system with 103 total miles of track. Interurban lines were added to nearby communities ofNorman and Guthrie, with the total system reaching to more than 138 miles by 1918.

With the advent of the automobile, streetcars began to experience new competition forridership. Fare increases were limited by a former mayor of Oklahoma City; the ORC filed forbankruptcy reorganization in 1939.

World War II and the presence of several military installations led to a brief period of resurgenttransit use. In 1945, the Oklahoma Transportation Company took over ORC management.However, post-war revenues then again declined. Buses had replaced trolleys by the 1950s, butfaced a similar fate; the Oklahoma Transportation Company terminated public transit service in1965. In response, the City Council of Oklahoma City established the Central OklahomaTransportation and Parking Authority (COTPA) in 1966 to continue public transit operations.

In 1989, COTPA purchased Union Station via a combination of federal grant and local donatedresources. The first Metropolitan Area Projects (MAPS) voter-approved project included thepurchase of Oklahoma City Trolleys in 1999. This was followed by construction of a downtowntransit center in 2004. In 2009, Oklahoma City voters approved MAPS 3 – including $120 millionin funding for re-introduction of streetcar service in downtown Oklahoma City. The City Councilof Oklahoma City approved a Recommended Route Framework (also known as the Zeta option)on September 24, 2013.

U.S. Experience with Streetcar & Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)As described by a study conducted for the American Public Transportation Association (APTA)and the Community Streetcar Coalition, streetcar systems as initially developed across theUnited States “extended the pedestrian environment out into the neighborhoods, served as acollector for intercity rail systems, and stopped at every street corner to stimulate a density andan intensity of development that made for an exemplary and engaging downtown.”7

Historical Experience. Starting in the mid to late 1800s, streetcar systems wereimplemented across America. Real estate owners and developers sought to increase sales byconnecting their newly-built homes to Central City employment and retail via streetcar transit.Mass marketing of the automobile deflected attention from – and investment in – thesesystems in the 1900s in all but a handful of cities, including Toronto, New Orleans, Philadelphiaand San Francisco.

Most cities with longstanding streetcar operations eventually folded their systems, asdevelopment became increasingly oriented to the automobile. However, there are a handful ofcities that have maintained ongoing streetcar systems over the years.

Philadelphia’s system continues as a primarily local resident and commuter service. Bycomparison, systems in San Francisco and New Orleans attract significant tourist together withlocal resident ridership. Today, only Toronto and New Orleans continue to operate systems thathave remained largely unchanged in their configuration and method of operation.


Modern Streetcar Reintroduction. Beginning in about the 1970s, re-introducing arelationship between transit investment and economic development has been of growinginterest at federal, state and local community levels. Concepts of “joint development” and“transit-oriented development” (or TOD) emerged in response to revived initiatives for urbanmass transit – starting with subway and then light rail transit projects. The transit-developmentconnection has become of greater interest with the even more recent re-introduction ofmodern streetcar transit systems in the U.S.

As of early 2013, there are 26 existing heritage and modern streetcar systems operating in theUnited States and Canada – as identified by the American Public Transportation Association(APTA). Of this number, 15 are considered large and medium scale systems – including legacyoperations in Boston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Toronto. The other 10large/medium systems represent new starts including both heritage and modern trolleysystems – in cities ranging from Portland to Dallas to Little Rock.

In addition to the existing operating streetcar systems, another five cities are underconstruction with new systems planned to open in 2013-14. And 86 cities (including OklahomaCity) are currently planning new streetcar systems – bringing the combined total to 117 citiesthat are either operational, under construction, or in active planning. Of the cities with ongoingoperations, APTA has identified several cities – including New Orleans, Portland, San Francisco,Seattle, Dallas, Kenosha, and Lowell – as being under construction or planning significantextensions.8

Because many of the development effects from the legacy streetcar systems have played outover decades, it is to the more recent system re-starts that this assessment turns for data oncontemporary patterns of development leveraged with streetcar investment.

Contemporary Streetcar-Development Documentation. Renewed experience withstreetcar is so recent that documentation of the relationship between streetcar investment andurban development has yet to be extensively researched and quantified. For purposes ofcalibrating this development assessment, the most extensive multi-city case study researchconducted to date has been by the Brookings Institution for three cities that have made recentstreetcar investments – Portland, Seattle and Tampa.9

While population growth rates for the Oklahoma City metro area have been below the rates ofthese comparables over much of the last two decades, the strength of recent economicrecovery has moved Oklahoma City more to parity in recent years – and with forecast growthfor the years ahead (as documented by Appendix E). As of the 2010 U.S. Census, Oklahoma CityMSA had 1.25 million residents – ranking 44th in size of U.S. metro areas. Census Bureau dataindicates that the OKC metro region moved into the 42nd spot, just ahead of Louisville, in 2012.

The OCARTS planning region, which comprises about 95% of the MSA population, is forecast toexperience population growth at a 1.0% annual rate over the 2017-27 period – above the U.S.growth rate forecast by the Census Bureau at 0.7% annually. If strong regional populationgrowth of the last few years continues, this regional forecast could prove to be conservative.10


OOKKCC SSTTRREEEETTCCAARR SSTTUUDDYY AARREEAA PPRROOFFIILLEE

This land use and economic development assessment begins by reviewing the study corridor asinitially defined, together with associated demographic and employment information. This isthen followed by defining a more targeted streetcar benefit area extending approximatelythree blocks on each side of the planned modern streetcar or fixed guideway alignment.

Corridor & Benefit Area DefinitionsIn 2011, an Alternatives Analysis (AA) was conducted for the Central Oklahoma Transportationand Parking Authority (COTPA) to “determine the most cost-effective transit mode andalignments for a downtown transit circulator.” The analysis was aimed to identify a frameworkfor transit supportive development and provide information useful for City selection of analignment meeting local land use and economic development goals. TOD or transit orienteddevelopment was defined in terms of characteristics for “a dense mixed-use central businessdistrict, mixed use activity centers, and a pedestrian-friendly sidewalk pattern.”

The AA identified three downtown circulator transit alternatives for consideration:

No-Build Alternative – comprising the COTPA prepared Encompass 2035 transitimprovements as part of a fiscally constrained Long Range Transportation Plan.

Base Case Alternative – as the “best that can be done” including a bus rapid transit(BRT) circulator without major capital improvements.

Build Alternative – including all of the improvements envisioned with the No-Build andBase Case Alternatives plus fixed guideway improvement for a modern streetcar.

Preliminary 2013 Route Framework. Subsequent to AA completion, a Locally PreferredAlternative (LPA) was selected on a preliminary basis for purposes of further evaluation,including this economic development assessment. The study area for this land use andeconomic development assessment generally follows the 2011 LPA route servingMidtown/Downtown Core/Bricktown identified in the Alternatives Analysis. During the courseof developing this assessment, the adjoining Core to Shore district was added given that area’ssignificant economic development potential in close proximity to the Downtown Core.

Since work began on this assessment, multiple alignment design options have been identifiedand evaluated; selection of a streetcar Alignment Framework is anticipated for the fall of 2013.While the 2011 LPA has been used as the basis for redevelopment projections in thisassessment, the differences among the alignment design options under review is not expectedto produce substantially different economic development results. The 2013 RecommendedRoute Framework falls within 2-3 blocks of enough re-developable properties to reasonablyaccommodate forecast residential and employment growth through 2027.

This map on the following page illustrates the LPA alignment selected in 2011 for evaluationand continued for evaluation with this 2013 Route Framework analysis.


With this evaluation, theopportunity for transitsupportive developmentis assessed for twobenefit zones and threeoverlapping routesegments.

Benefit Zones. Basedon experience withtransit-orienteddevelopment in citiesthroughout the U.S.,properties up to about1/4 mile on either sideof a streetcar alignmentcan be expected toexperience the greatesteconomic benefits interms of added businessand residential potential,development andvaluation. The degree ofbenefit relates directlyto the willingness of atypical resident,employee, customerand/or visitor to walk totheir home, place ofbusiness, or destinationfor shopping, recreationand/or lodging.

For purposes of this landuse and economic development analysis, the benefit study area has been divided into twozones of influence based on proximity to the streetcar 2013 Route Framework area:

Zone A: extending approximately one block from the streetcar corridor area. Zone B: reaching beyond Zone A to three blocks from the streetcar corridor.

Note that benefit area boundaries are truncated when these distances extend to the I-235corridor (to the east), the New Boulevard (adjoining C2S to the south), or the historic residentialneighborhood (to the north).

Figure 2. 2013 Route Framework & C2S Benefit Areas

Source: City of Oklahoma City, Jacobs Engineering, and E. D. Hovee & Co., LLC.The framework area is consistent with the earlier 2011 LPA used withthis overall land use and economic development assessment.


Parcels are assigned to either Zone A or Zone B depending on whether their center point iswithin the distance indicated. Based on experience with in-place streetcar systems elsewhere inthe U.S., Zone A properties generally can be expected to receive a higher level of developmentinterest due to their closer proximity and reduced walk distance to direct streetcar service.

Route Framework Segments. While the primary focus of this assessment is on benefitzones (reflecting distance from a potential alignment), the analysis also distinguishes betweenthree distinct Route Framework segments:

A northern “Midtown” segment – running east-west on a NW 11th/13th Street coupletfrom Dewey Avenue to the Robinson/Broadway corridor;

A central or “Downtown Core” segment – extending north-south on aRobinson/Broadway couplet; and

A southern “Bricktown” segment – running east-west on a Sheridan/Reno Avenuestreetcar couplet.

The opportunity for transit supportive development is assessed both separately and on acombined basis for these two benefit zones and three 2013 Route Framework segments.Detailed data regarding existing and forecast conditions for these 2013 Framework segments isprovided by Appendix F to this report.

Core to Shore Plan (C2S). The final geography illustrated by the map on the previous pageis a portion of the Core to Shore (C2S) area that might benefit from a potential streetcarextension in proximity to the planned MAPS 3 park area. In 2008, the City of Oklahoma Citycompleted a Core to Shore Plan as a redevelopment framework intended to link the traditionalcity center to the Oklahoma River.

While not included as part of the 2013 Recommended Route Framework, potential economicdevelopment benefits associated with future extension of streetcar service to the centralportion of the C2S area also are considered with this economic development assessment. Thisportion of the C2S area – extending from the New Boulevard south to the new I-40 alignmentand from Shartel Avenue east to Shields Boulevard – is the subject of supplemental evaluationthat is also covered by this report.

The C2S segment analysis is conducted independent of a specific alignment or streetcar routealternative. However, it is understood that streetcar service, if extended, could logically beconfigured in a manner that would extend the 2013 Framework route while serving the plannedand now funded MAPS 3 park together with nearby future anticipated C2S mixed usedevelopment.

Existing Conditions for 2013 Route Framework & C2S Benefit AreasUsing GIS datasets from the City of Oklahoma City containing data from the Oklahoma CountyAssessor Department, it is possible to characterize existing conditions and development


patterns. This is done for the TOD benefit areas associated both with the 2013 RecommendedRoute Framework and for the portion of the Core to Shore (C2S) plan area extending from theNew Boulevard south to the relocated I-40 alignment. Existing conditions of note relate to:

Land area and associated use – as residential, commercial or vacant property Building area and associated density of development – measured in terms of floor area

ratio (FAR) Market and assessed valuation – defined in terms consistent with those of the

Oklahoma County Assessor Department New development experienced from 2000-11 – for residential and commercial uses Potential redevelopment sites – in terms of improvements to land value (I:L) ratios

GIS Data Application & Refinement. This existing conditions assessment is based onanalysis of files for 1,102 tax parcels associated with the 2013 Route Framework and another282 tax parcels in the C2S benefit areas. The database appears fairly comprehensive overall,albeit with a caveat that a major portion of the parcel database consists of properties for whichthere is no identified property value information.

A substantial portion of these non-assessed properties are tax-exempt due to public or non-profit ownership. This updated report contains added detail as to the characteristics andanticipated development potential of these non-assessed properties.

Current Development Patterns. As of 2011, the 2013 Route Framework accounts for a546-acre potential benefit area. Of this area, over 317 acres (58%) of the land lies within oneblock of the streetcar alignment; another 229 acres (42%) lies within a 2-3 block distance.

Over 230 acres of the combined Zone A/B land area are comprised of commercial uses, with194 acres of exempt use – including major public facilities, identified opportunity sites andother non-assessed properties. An estimated 99 acres are identified as vacant. Just under 24acres are identified as comprising primarily residential or mixed use development.

By comparison, the C2S area comprises a study area totaling just under 98 acres. This includes33 acres of non-assessed (exempt) properties and 30-31 acres of commercial property, with 25acres identified as vacant and 9 acres of residential or mixed use.

Existing conditions (as of 2011) for the 2013 Recommended Route Framework area and theCore to Shore area are detailed by the chart on the following page.


Figure 3. Existing Conditions of Streetcar Corridor Benefit Areas Evaluated (2011)Core to Shore

Zone A Zone B Total AreaLand Area (Acres)

Residential 4.6 11.3 15.9 7.5Commercial 140.9 89.2 230.1 30.5Mixed Use 4.7 3.2 7.8 1.5Exempt 120.0 73.5 193.6 33.2Vacant 47.1 51.6 98.7 25.2Corridor Total 317.3 228.7 546.0 97.9

Building Area (Square Feet)Residential 482,400 625,700 1,108,100 63,100Commercial 11,975,700 2,666,200 14,641,900 732,100Mixed Use 240,100 196,600 436,700 22,900Exempt 2,463,800 1,710,600 4,174,400 23,000Vacant 100 - 100 1,500Corridor Total 15,162,100 5,199,100 20,361,200 842,600

Density (Average FAR)Residential 2.42 1.27 1.60 0.19Commercial 1.95 0.69 1.46 0.55Mixed Use 1.18 1.42 1.28 0.34Exempt 0.47 0.53 0.50 0.02Vacant - - - 0.00Corridor Total 1.10 0.52 0.86 0.20

Market ValuationResidential $27,224,000 $51,719,000 $78,943,000 $1,889,000Commercial $741,616,000 $127,746,000 $869,362,000 $23,356,000Mixed Use $16,571,000 $16,059,000 $32,630,000 $224,000Exempt $48,467,000 $28,395,000 $76,862,000 $39,000Vacant $15,249,000 $19,728,000 $34,977,000 $4,955,000Corridor Total $849,127,000 $243,647,000 $1,092,774,000 $30,463,000

Assessed Valuation (Adjusted)Corridor Total $92,422,000 $25,424,000 $117,846,000 $3,125,000

Existing CorridorConditions (2011)

2013 Recommended Route Framework

Source: City of Oklahoma City, Jacobs Engineering and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC.

Key characteristics as depicted by the foregoing existing conditions chart are summarizedseparately for the 2013 Route Framework Alignment and Core to Shore Area as follows.

2013 Route Framework Alignment:

The LPA (three block) benefit area comprises nearly 20.4 million square feet of existingbuilding area, of which 15.2 million square feet are situated within one block (as ZoneA) and 5.2 million square feet at a 2-3 block distance (Zone B). Commercial development


represents the greatest share (72%) of building area, followed by exempt uses (20%),then residential and mixed use activity (8%).

Average density of development is measured by floor area ratio (FAR), which is definedas building area divided by land area. FAR averages 0.86 across the LPA area, withhighest densities noted for residential uses and Zone A properties.

Market valuation of all LPA alignment area properties comes in at close to $1.1 billion,equating to an adjusted tax assessed valuation of approximately $118 million.Commercial uses account for 80% of market valuation; Zone A properties represent 78%of combined Zone A/B valuation.

Core to Shore Area:

The C2S area potentially benefitted by future streetcar extension comprises anestimated 843,000 square feet of existing building area. Approximately 87% of buildingsquare footage is accounted for by commercial (including existing industrial) uses.

Existing density of development is relatively low, as indicated by an overall average FARof only 0.20. This is less than one-quarter the density of the 2013 Route Framework areaand is indicative of substantial potential for added development with C2S planimplementation.

Market valuation of the C2S area considered is less than $30.5 million – with assessedvaluation of $3.1 million. C2S market valuation is only 3% that of the more intenselydeveloped 2013 Route Framework benefit area.

Recent Development Patterns. Using the GIS dataset, it is also possible to estimate thepace and pattern of new development that has occurred within both potential modernstreetcar project alignment areas over the past decade (from 2000-11):

For the area most likely benefitted by a 2013 Route Framework alignment,development over the 11-year period averaged just under 224,000 square feet per year– split approximately 46% to Zone A and 54% to Zone B properties. Within Zone A, 97%of development is indicated as being comprised of commercial uses. Within Zone B, abroader mix of development was experienced, led by commercial but with substantialdevelopment of residential/mixed use and exempt (or non-assessed) uses, as well.

Within the C2S area potentially served by future streetcar extension, new developmentover the 2000-11 time period averaged less than 12,000 square feet per year – almostall of which was accounted for by commercial uses.

Overall, new development averaged about 1.3% of the existing (pre-2000) building stockfor the entire 2013 Recommended Route Framework area. The pace of recentdevelopment (in percentage terms) was greater for the Zone B than the Zone A area.Within the C2S area, development occurred at an average annual rate of about 1.7% peryear – albeit on a substantially smaller base of pre-2000 existing uses.


Figure 4. Recent Development Experience (2000-11)Core to Shore

Zone A Zone B Total AreaDevelopment (Sq Ft per Year)

Residential - 26,400 26,400 200Commercial 100,500 52,700 153,200 11,700Mixed Use 2,400 8,200 10,600 -Exempt 900 32,800 33,700 -Corridor Total 103,800 120,100 223,900 11,900

Average Annual Development As % of 2000 InventoryAll Corridor Uses 0.7% 3.1% 1.3% 1.7%

Average AnnualDevelopment (2000-11)


Note: Information is based on parcels for which a new year of construction date is indicated as of 2000 orlater. Calculations above cover only parcels for which year built data is available.

Source: City of Oklahoma City, Jacobs Engineering and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC.

Potential Redevelopment Sites. A final step taken with this inventory assessment is toidentify parcels that were developed post-1999 or have high redevelopment potential.Identification of parcels that are either vacant or were developed pre-2000 are rated in termsof redevelopment potential based on a review of tax assessed improvements to land valuation.

Non-assessed properties have been categorized on a preliminary basis as major public facilities,opportunity sites and other non-assessed properties. These categorizations are furtherdescribed on the page following the composite (I:L) map.

Results of this analysis are visually depicted by the map on the following page – with anaccompanying chart providing associated statistical results for the 2013 Route Frameworkalignment and C2S study area. With this analysis, parcels shown are categorized as:

Developed since 2000 – per the “year built” field of the GIS data. Not built since 2000 – with improvement to land (I:L) value ratios at four increasing

levels of improvement intensity (< 0.5, 0.5-1.0, 1.0-2.0, and 2.0+). Properties for which I:L cannot be determined – because there is no assessed land

value shown with the parcel record or the site is planned for tax exempt use. A largeportion of the 2013 Route Framework land area – equating to about 33% of the mappedarea totaling 546 acres of identified tax lots – is considered as comprising non-assessed(or tax exempt) parcels not developed since 1999.11 A significant share of theseproperties appears to be within Zone A, with a somewhat smaller proportion in Zone B.With MAPS 3 planned uses, the C2S area has an estimated 45% share of land areacomprising exempt properties.


Figure 5. Improvement to Land (I:L) Value Distribution (2011)

Source: SOJ and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC based on parcel data from City of Oklahoma City with input fromCOTPA, Downtown OKC, and The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City. Revised as of August 2013.


Figure 6. Site Development & Redevelopment Status (2011)

Acres of Land % of Total Acres of Land % of Total2011 I:L Ratio

0.0-0.5 82.1 15% 14.7 15%0.5-1.0 13.5 2% 2.5 3%1.0+ 208.0 38% 31.1 32%Subtotal 303.5 56% 48.2 49%

Non-Assessed PropertiesMajor Public Facilities 54.8 10% 4.2 4%Other Non-Assessed 68.9 13% 8.5 9%Opportunity Sites 56.8 10% 31.3 32%Subtotal 180.5 33% 43.9 45%

Developed 2000-11 62.0 11% 5.7 6%Total Land Area 546.0 100% 97.9 100%

Core to Shore AreaImprovement to LandValue (I:L) Analysis

2013 Route Framework

Notes: I:L denotes the ratio of assessed improvements to land valuation. Opportunity Sites include MAPS 3parcels anticipated for parks and convention center/replacement uses. Data is for Zones A and Bcombined. Detailed segment data is provided with Appendix F.

Source: City of Oklahoma City, Jacobs Engineering and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC.Assignments for properties with no I:L ratios have been made based on discussions with COTPA, TheAlliance, and Downtown OKC. Revised as of August 2013.

Recognizing that non-assessed properties comprise a significant portion of the downtown studyarea (including 2013 Route Framework and C2S) land base, further evaluation of theseproperties was conducted with input from COTPA, The Alliance for Economic Development ofOklahoma City, and Downtown Oklahoma City, Inc. For purposes of this land use and economicdevelopment assessment, these non-assessed properties have been further categorized as:

Major Public Facilities – exempt properties occupied by existing major public facilities Non-Assessed Opportunity Sites – larger sites where redevelopment or reuse could

reasonably occur prior to 2027 (and with many of these sites anticipated to beredeveloped between 2013-17 before streetcar operations are initiated)

Other Non-Assessed Properties – other exempt properties not identified as eitherMajor Public Facilities or Opportunity Sites and which are viewed as generally unlikely tobe redeveloped through the 2027 forecast period of this analysis

Within the 546-acre benefit area encompassed by the 2013 Route Framework alignment,approximately 15% of the land area consists of properties with an improvements to land value(I:L) ratio of up to 0.5. These are the properties that can be considered as likely candidates toredevelop in the years ahead. A relatively small 2% proportion of land area falls within the I:Lrange of 0.5-1.0 – with 38% at higher improvements value of I:L greater than 1.0.Approximately 11% of the 2013 Route Framework land area has experienced new developmentpost-1999.


As noted, 33% of the 2013 Route Framework land base consists of properties identified withnon-assessed (or tax-exempt) uses. An estimated 10% of 2013 Framework land area housesmajor public facilities; another 13% comprises other non-assessed uses. These properties arenot anticipated to experience re-development through 2027.

Another 10% of the 2013 Route Framework site area (or 57 acres) of non-assessed propertiesare identified as potential opportunity sites. A substantial portion of this acreage comprisesstreetcar development projects anticipated to be built between 2013-2017 together withproperties reserved for MAPS 3 use or disposition including the current Convention Center site.The remaining portion (of about 19 acres not associated with an identified project) could beavailable for inclusion together with low I:L properties as potentially promising sites forredevelopment in the years ahead.

Within the C2S area, a similar 15% share of acreage consists of relatively under-improved sitesin taxable status. A still substantial 32% of the C2S land base is comparatively high value andcould require a more active public land assembly role to facilitate development as envisionedwith the C2S plan.

Including planned MAPS 3 uses, a substantial (45%) share of C2S acreage is identified as non-assessed property – some of which will be developed for public uses and a portion of whichmay be made available for redevelopment with C2S plan implementation. Opportunity sitescomprise 31 of the 44 acres of non-assessed property identified for the C2S area. However,MAPS 3 sites comprise a significant portion of this land area, leaving about 5 acres indicated aspotential for private development – in addition to the low I:L value sites that are already intaxable status.

An noted, this I:L valuation and opportunity site categorization serves as an important means ofallocating future development potentials pursuant to the without streetcar and with streetcarscenarios – as described later in this land use and economic development assessment report.Appendix C details the process of categorizing non-assessed properties.


RREEGGIIOONNAALL PPLLAANNNNIINNGG && DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT CCOONNTTEEXXTT

This economic development report is not intended to serve as a detailed assessment of theOklahoma City area market for future residential, commercial and public/institutionaldevelopment. While the planned 2017 opening of a streetcar system may well occur within thecurrent cycle of prolonged economic recovery, the longer term look to 2027 (or 10 years aftersystem opening) is beyond the time horizon of most real estate related forecasts.

Consequently, a pivotal part of this land use and economic development assessment involves areview of the existing planning framework as it pertains to the modern streetcar projectalignment and benefit area for TOD. In effect, this discussion is intended to describe the contextof the downtown neighborhood setting, Oklahoma City planning, study area demographics andemployment trends and forecasts, and planned development project activity within which themodern streetcar investment may occur.

Downtown Neighborhood SettingThe larger study area for this economic development assessment is depicted by the map on thefollowing page as extending west to east from Western Avenue to I-235, from north to southfrom NW 16th Street to the new I-40 freeway. The 2013 Framework is part of this study area.

As is also illustrated by the map, downtown Oklahoma City is comprised of distinct commercial,residential and mixed use neighborhoods. Neighborhoods can be distinguished between thoseproposed as part of the 2013 Route Framework or future C2S extension and surrounding areas.

2013 Route Framework Neighborhood Districts:

Midtown – extending from about 8th to 13th and from west of Broadway to encompassthe St. Anthony hospital campus plan, with substantial residential infill interest

Automobile Alley – from 4th Street north to about 13th and from west of Broadway to theI-235 interstate freeway with former auto dealerships and related historic uses beingtransitioned to restaurant, loft, apartment and retail activities

Central Business District (CBD) – representing the traditional commercial office, retailand governmental core of the city from 4th Street south to Sheridan

C2S North – as the portion of the Core to Shore planning area north of the NewBoulevard including current site of the convention center and Chesapeake Arena

Bricktown – as a specialty destination district from Gaylord east to the I-235 freeway

Due to a widely varied mix and intensity of existing uses and building styles, the type and scaleof future development can be expected to respond to streetcar investment in a mannerdistinctive to the character of each district. Anticipated focus of the development forecast withthis analysis is with development anticipated in the next several years and then for the first 10years after streetcar is planned for inaugural service (or from 2017-27).


Figure 7. Downtown Study Area Neighborhood Districts

Source: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC based on information from COTPA and Jacobs Engineering. Informationis illustrative and not intended as a definitive identification of downtown neighborhoods.


Future Core to Shore Extension:

C2S Central – the portion of Core to Shore extending from the New Boulevard to thenew I-40 freeway alignment

With this analysis, economic development potentials are also considered for the C2S Centralarea, albeit with no specific time frame for streetcar service currently identified. For ease ofterminology, this C2S Central area is referred to as C2S throughout this report.

Surrounding Districts:

Deep Deuce – an historic neighborhood located east of Gaylord Boulevard and north ofthe rail alignment, which is receiving considerable new residential investment

Arts District – located just west and north of the CBD Historic Film Row – considered as the portion of the Arts District encompassing the 600

and 700 blocks along Sheridan between Main and California C2S South – planned for longer term redevelopment from the new I-40 alignment south

to the Oklahoma River (and outside the formal study area for this economicdevelopment analysis)

While not directly served by streetcar, all but C2S South are within reasonable walking distanceof the 2013 Route Framework alignment being evaluated with this analysis. Any or somecombination of these neighborhood districts could conceivably be served with future streetcarextensions depending on performance on the initial 2013 Framework investment. Reviewed asa separate analysis is potential for streetcar service to the Oklahoma Health Center (OHC) area.

Oklahoma City PlanningDiscussion of Oklahoma City’s planning framework for transit and economic developmentbegins with the MAPS initiative, followed by OKC Plan and subsequent Core to Shore masterplanning together with consideration of regional transportation and transit planning. As noted,a separate report subsequent to this analysis addresses land use and economic developmentpotential for the Oklahoma Heath Center (OHC) corridor.

Metropolitan Area Projects. While urban core area planning in many cities is led by aninitial planning effort, the Oklahoma City experience has been driven by a major fundinginitiative predicated on broad community wide voter support. Metropolitan Area Projects(MAPS) were initiated in 1993 when Oklahoma City voters approved the City’s first MAPS salestax in an effort to make significant improvements to downtown.

Subsequent MAPS extensions were approved by the voters with passage of MAPS for Kids in2001 and MAPS 3 in 2009. Within the downtown area, the MAPS sales tax initiative has fundedmajor civic projects including the Ford Center (now Chesapeake Arena), Chickasaw Ballpark,Bricktown Canal, and improvements to the Oklahoma River corridor.


MAPS 3 is a 10-year construction program, funded by a limited term, one-cent sales taxinitiative that began in April 2010 and ends in December 2017. The initiative funds eightprojects and is estimated to raise $777 million.

Projects of particular significance to the downtown area and implementation of a modernstreetcar system and associated downtown redevelopment (together with initial costestimates) include:

Downtown Convention Center ($250 million) Downtown Public Park ($130 million) Modern Streetcar/Transit ($120 million) Oklahoma River Improvements ($60 million) Trails and Sidewalks ($50 million)

The first phase of the modern streetcar project is intended to both reinforce existing activityand facilitate further redevelopment in the downtown core, Midtown and Bricktown areas.Convention center redevelopment, a downtown public park, and Oklahoma RiverImprovements are aimed to extend public-private investment and revitalization from thesouthern end of the current core area across the New Boulevard into the C2S Central area. Thescale and timing of C2S investments could be further accelerated with future or second phasestreetcar extension. This could be facilitated by extending streetcar service into C2S from theNew Boulevard to the relocated I-40 interstate freeway.

OKC Plan 2000-2020. As approved by the Oklahoma City Council and adopted by thePlanning Commission in 2000, the OKC Plan began with a vision emphasizing:

Residential development with creation of a permanent downtown urban neighborhood Improved occupancy for office and commercial buildings with diversification or core

downtown functions Continued development of an entertainment and cultural district

Achieving this vision has included direction to “promote public-private cooperation to supportredevelopment.” Continuing and strengthening “Downtown’s role as an employment, cultural,residential, and entertainment center” has been described as a primary goal of the Plan.Priority implementation actions have included relocation of I-40 south of downtown, potentialre-introduction of trolley streetcar service in downtown, and developing supportive transit andland use strategies for regional mobility corridors.

Market Achievable Development Densities. A more recent downtown planninginitiative has involved analysis of potentially achievable market densities (measured as FAR orfloor area ratios). As illustrated by the map on the following page, market-supportable FARsrange from as low as 0.35 in some largely single-family areas to more than 6.5 within thedowntown core area.


Figure 8. Downtown Study Area Potential FAR Ratios

Source: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC based on data from the City of Oklahoma City.


Core to Shore Plan. The Core to Shore Framework Master Plan, completed in 2008, outlinesa “blueprint” for re-creating the southern entrance to Downtown Oklahoma City. The full Coreto Shore (C2S) plan extends across a 750-acre area encompassing the downtown area to theOklahoma River.

The C2S plan envisioned relocating an interstate freeway (I-40) and connecting the downtowncore with the Oklahoma River. C2S also is intended to “transform the Core to Shore districtfrom an underutilized and economically underperforming area into a powerful venue foreconomic growth.”

Over a several decade horizon, implementation is proposed to occur via an estimated $3 billioninitiative of public and private investment including:

Major public parks – anchored by a new 40-acre Central Park as a MAPS 3 projectextending on the south side of the New Boulevard to Union Station and betweenRobinson and Hudson Avenues

A relocated state-of-the-art convention center and convention hotel An estimated 3,000 housing units – ranging from single-family detached homes to

residential towers for ultimate population of an added 6,000-7,500 residents Up to 550,000 square feet of retail space – plus build-to-suit office space in line with

business or corporate needs Redevelopment of major sites such as the Cotton Producers Cooperative Oil Mill east of

Shields Boulevard Adaptive reuse of Union Station and a multi-model transportation center Potential introduction of a greater downtown circulator in recognition of the value of

both BRT and streetcar to access the C2S area via the planned Boulevard (as referencedby the 2030 Fixed Guideway Plan prepared in 2005)

A C2S market analysis completed in early 2007, prior to the recession, estimated potential forapproximately 800 single-family housing units, nearly 2,200 multi-family housing units, and a250,000-500,000 square foot retail center to be constructed over the 2005-20 time period.

The recession appears to have delayed the time frame over when this development might nowbe reasonably expected. As a result, The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma Cityhas recently contracted for an updated Downtown and C2S market study as part of the MAPS 3program. When completed, results may be considered to refine some of the base caseassumptions with related C2S streetcar analysis.

Early phase C2S public sector projects are intended to include I-40 relocation, Central Parkdevelopment, convention center relocation, and Union Station adaptive reuse. Successful earlyphase implementation will set the stage for accompanying private mixed use investment andlonger term momentum for redevelopment of the southern C2S area – extending further southfrom the new I-40 freeway to the Oklahoma riverfront.


The ultimate role of public transit was not fully defined with the initial C2S Plan. However,potential elements have been identified to include an intermodal transit center, Union Stationadaptive reuse, and possible extension of downtown circulator or streetcar service as a “bi-directional loop” on both sides of Central Park.

It would be premature to determine specific street alignments for future C2S streetcar service.However, the scope for this economic development analysis includes a preliminary assessmentof the role that streetcar could play in shaping the scale, mix of uses and timing of developmentin the C2S Central area from the New Boulevard to the re-aligned I-40 corridor.

COTPA Planning. In 2005, the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority(COTPA) completed a 2030 regional fixed guideway systems plan for central Oklahoma. Thisplan’s recommendations were developed in conjunction with several jurisdictions and laterincorporated into the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) OCARTs planning effort andthe MPO’s Regional Transit Dialogue (RTD) efforts.

The 2030 systems plan in the COTPA 2005 Fixed Guideway Plan (FGP) recommended a streetcarcirculator for the greater downtown, the facilitation of transit supportive land uses, and variousfinancial tools. That FGP systems plan also recommended a transit hub, BRT, commuter rail,regional transit funding, and other key capital improvements and tools for the region.

In 2010 and 2011, COTPA conducted an Alternatives Analysis (AA) for a downtown circulator.This AA was helped along by the COTPA/MAPS Let’s Talk Transit streetcar visioning process in2010. In July 2011, the AA resulted in a 7.6 track mile streetcar Locally Preferred Alignment(LPA). While the specific alignment may vary somewhat from what was identified by the earlierLPA description, the LPA serves as the basis for this 2013 Recommended Route Frameworkanalysis.

Even before the FGP and AA, COTPA completed a Long Range Service Plan in 2001. A key goal ofthe plan was that “METRO Transit will be an active partner in promoting the economic growthof the greater Oklahoma City metropolitan area.”

The Long Range Plan included identification of alternative funding sources that could be usefulfor capital funding. Among the sources identified were innovative infrastructure financingmechanisms, turnkey development/equity partnerships, value recapture, and use of propertyand property rights (producing revenue through COTPA land holdings).

With its planning, COTPA/Metro Transit has also identified the very low operating fundinglevels it faced and therefore “when compared with similar cities, METRO transit provides lessservice and carries fewer passengers” than other metro regions of the U.S. of similar size. Along-term vision is for fixed guideway transit including re-introduction of streetcar service. Thisaction is viewed as integral to creating a “riding culture” for transit as a mode of choice withinthe greater Oklahoma City area.


OCARTS Regional Transportation. Consistent with its role as the Metropolitan PlanningOrganization (MPO) for the Oklahoma City metro region, the Association of Central OklahomaGovernments (ACOG) has conducted the Oklahoma City Area Regional Transportation Study(OCARTS). As MPO, ACOG works with and has relied on COTPA planning analysis together withinput from local jurisdictions throughout the region.

The OCARTS region includes 40 cities and towns located within the more urbanized portions ofthe six-county metro area. This planning region includes Oklahoma and Cleveland Countiestogether with portions of Canadian, Grady, McClain and Logan Counties.

Aging and continued diversification of the region’s population are viewed as major drivers ofchange in the decades ahead. Within the OCARTS area, households and employment areforecast to increase between 2005 and 2035 by approximately 31% and 33%, respectively.Population has been forecast to increase by 31% – somewhat more slowly than employmentdue to expectations of declining average household size.

Even with some increased transit ridership, vehicle miles of travel are anticipated to rise evenmore rapidly. Vehicle miles traveled have been forecast to increase by about 53% over this 30-year time horizon (to 2030).

As of 2005, the OCARTS region had a total population of 1.076 million – accounting for close to95% of total MSA population. The OCARTS region also had 461,000 housing units andemployment of over 578,000.

OCARTS projections of population, households and employment are available not only at aregional level but also for transportation analysis zones (TAZs) down to the block level, as in thedowntown Oklahoma City area. Because TAZ projections appear to have underestimated actualgrowth within the downtown Oklahoma City area, OCARTS forecasts have been adjustedthrough a collaborative provisional multi-agency planning process as described by Appendix Dto this report. Adjusted TAZ data is utilized to forecast base case development that mightreasonably be expected within the 2013 Route Framework and C2S areas without streetcar.

What follows is an overview of adjusted TAZ projections for housing units and employmentcovering the 2005-35 time period. Forecast allocations are indicated for:

The benefit area potentially encompassed by the 2013 Route Framework as defined forpurposes of this preliminary analysis

The portion of the Core to Shore (C2S) that might be most readily affected by a potentialstreetcar extension

A larger downtown study area (extending from Western Avenue on the west to I-235 onthe east, and from the relocated I-40 freeway on the south to the north side of 13th

Street from Western to Robinson Avenues and 16th Street in the vicinity of Broadway-Robinson on the north)


As illustrated by the chart tothe right, the downtownstudy area for thisassessment had anemployment base of 37,850together with an estimated2,400+ housing units and6,500 residents as of 2005.In effect, the downtownstudy area comprises 6-7%of the urban OCARTS areaemployment and less than1% of regional population.

From 2005-27, downtownstudy area employment isprojected to increase byabout 25%, while regionaljobs are estimated toincrease 28%.

By comparison, the numberof downtown housing unitsis projected to more thantriple compared to a 26%increase in the number ofhousing units in the greaterOCARTS region.

When considered bydowntown subareas ofimportance for thisassessment, the followingadded observations arenoted:

As of 2005, thepotential benefitarea encompassed bythe 2013 Framework accounts for nearly 80% of downtown area employment and closeto 50% of downtown housing units. Over half of downtown employment is within theZone A (1 block) of the 2013 Route Framework. Through 2027, both employment andhousing growth are anticipated to continue to cluster in close proximity to the 2013Route Framework.

Figure 9. Housing & Employment Forecasts (to 2027)Housing Units

Employment

Source: OCARTS, See Appendix D for added detail. Adjusted TAZ-basedOCARTS forecasts are used with a without streetcar (base case)development scenario, as described later in this report.


Currently, the Core to Shore (C2S) area comprises a relatively small (about 5%) share ofboth downtown area employment and housing. From 2005-27,the an adjusted OCARTSforecast indicates that C2S would account for nearly 17% of the added housing units inthe downtown study area but only about 3% of the net change in employment-relatedactivity.

Forecast Implications. Both regional and downtown/streetcar alignment specificimplications are noted with the adjusted OCARTS base case (or without streetcar) forecasts:

For the OCARTS region, the average annual rate of housing and employment growth forthe 2017-27 time period (the forecast horizon for this streetcar-related assessment) isforecast to occur at about the same rate or perhaps slightly lower as from 2005-17.

For the 2013 Framework benefit area, the rate of housing development from 2005-17 isforecast to be particularly rapid reflecting current development activity, then slowingafter 2017 but still about 80% above regional rates of housing growth. 2013 RouteFramework employment growth is forecast to occur at about the same rates (perhapsslightly slower) for the 2013 Route Framework than regionally.

For the C2S area, housing forecasts are well above those of the region reflecting C2Splan implementation – albeit with lower base case rates of job growth expected.

While these adjusted OCARTS growth factors serve as key assumptions to underpin the withoutstreetcar (base case) scenarios for the 2013 Route Framework and C2S benefit areas, otherdemographic and employment characteristics are also of note, as summarized in the nextsection of this analysis.

Study Corridor Demographics & EmploymentA number of demographic, housing and employment analyses have been conducted in recentyears. Summarized below is demographic employment information reviewed as a means tofurther inform this economic development assessment.

Demographics & Housing. A 2009 MAPS Impact Analysis was conducted for downtownstudy area extending from Western Avenue to east of I-235 to encompass the Oklahoma HealthCenter (OHC). This study area had an estimated 11,100 residents as of 2008 – up by nearly1,550 (or 16%) since 2000. Demographics of note include greater diversity of race/ethnicitythan elsewhere in the OKC area – with just under half of downtown residents as white alone,one third black and the remainder of other racial/ethnic backgrounds.

Employment. The 2009 MAPS Impact Analysis estimated that the downtown study area hadan estimated 34,750 employees as of 2006 (covering the 73102, 73103 and 73104 zip codes).After losing establishments, employment and payroll from 1995-2001, the area gained about4,000 jobs in the next five years – described as “a renaissance whose timing tracks the openingof the major MAPS projects.” For the entire study area, average payroll was 36% above that ofthe Oklahoma County average – even higher within the more narrowly defined downtown CBD.


Much of the recent impetus for economic expansion and resulting payroll increases indowntown and the OKC metro region has come from energy companies including ContinentalResources, Devon Energy Corp., and Sandridge Energy Inc. These companies have recruitednationally for workers with a highly skilled younger workforce and have established substantiallocal headquarters presence. As of year-end 2012, unemployment in the OKC metro region wasat just 4.7%, well below the national average of 7.8%.

Residential & Commercial DevelopmentSince 1993 when voters first approved a municipal sales tax tofund major capital improvements (via MAPS), significant publicand private re-investment has been experienced in the centralcore of Oklahoma City. In a 20-year period between 1995 and2014, an estimated $5.1 billion in significant downtown areainvestments are anticipated. Of this amount, 38% has beenassociated with medical and research projects, 23% with publicprojects including MAPS, 19% with office and parking facilities,7% with major housing and mixed use projects, and 13% withhotel, retail/entertainment, cultural and river-related projects.12

Oklahoma City has received national recognition for its economicperformance. Within the last year, OKC was ranked by Forbes at10th for “best big city for jobs” and ranked #1 by the U.S. Bureauof Labor Statistics for highest annual earnings growth rate.13

Oklahoma City also continues to move up in the rankings of cities worth watching for nationalreal estate prospects. While 43rd in market size, OKC is ranked 32nd overall in the U.S. for “U.S.markets to watch” by the national development organization Urban Land Institute (ULI) andfares best in terms of perceptions regarding homebuilding prospects (at #30).

Office Space. As of the 2008 C2S plan, the Oklahoma City CBD had about 5.2 million squarefeet of office space of which over one-quarter (27.8%) was vacant as of 2008. While Class Cspace constitutes the majority of vacant space, rental rates even with Class A space have beenbelow the rates typically required to support new speculative multi-tenant office development.However, the potential need for new headquarters office centers (as with the energy sector)has provided opportunities for high amenity build-to-suit office space.

The most dramatic change in the OKC skyline came with the 2011 completion of the 52-storyDevon Energy office tower. Other recent investments have included refurbishment of the 29-story Kerr-McGee tower for SandRidge Energy, the SONIC Corp headquarters in Bricktown, anew downtown Federal Campus, and smaller office structures as build-to-suits for organizationsincluding the American Choir Directors Association and Oklahoma City Community Foundation(cited as the first new office building constructed along Broadway in 40+ years).

OKC Prospects

“We will see a push inone tertiary market –Oklahoma City,” and “weare seeing manycompanies moving fromthe West Coast toOklahoma.” As an energylocation, Oklahoma City(32) moved up four pointsin the (ULI) investmentprospect ranks.

- Urban Land Institute,2013 Emerging Trends in

Real Estate


Retail Development. Market analysis conducted as part of the C2S plan indicates that, whileonce serving as the premier retail center in Oklahoma City, the downtown core now offersrelatively little retail other than specialty stores. Bricktown has developed as aspecialty/destination retail area – especially for dining and entertainment. Retail uses includingdining, recreation and entertainment uses have benefitted from a substantial increase indocumented tourism activity with MAPS projects – increasing by 13% from 6.6 million visits toDowntown OKC in 2003 to 8.6 million in 2008. During this same time period, tourism activity inBricktown nearly tripled from 1.0 to 2.9 million visits annually.

C2S is seen as providing an opportunity for a destination retail center, defined as providing theimpetus to attract regional customers and expand the existing retail market. Potentialopportunity for a major urban retail center was indicated as ranging from 250-550,000 squarefeet. As noted by the C2S plan: “The Oklahoma City metropolitan area lacks a comparableurban retail center, making this a new product for the region.” The demand for this potentialretail destination is currently being re-assessed as part of an updated C2S market report.

Hotel Development. This sector has taken on a greater role for downtown OKC in recentyears, noted as a major opportunity in conjunction with increasing room rates and occupancylevels. As of the 2009 MAPS Impact Analysis, increased convention and tourism activity hadresulted in the reopening of a downtown landmark (the Skirvin), refurbishment of a major hotel(the Sheraton), and additional smaller boutique hotels opened or under construction. Fivequality hotels now exist west of the BNSF rail tracks near the Cox Convention Center and twoare now open east of the tracks in Bricktown.

A headquarters hotel targeted for 500+ rooms is currently planned in conjunction withconvention center relocation. Up to eight more hotels are being planned for the Bricktownarea, with added hotel interest in the Midtown area as well.

Residential Resurgence. As in numerous other urban areas across the U.S., residentialdevelopment is no longer an afterthought but often now viewed as pivotal to ramped up urbanrevitalization. During the 1990s, there was some initial movement toward added residentialdevelopment, with approximately 375 apartments constructed in the greater OKC downtownarea.14 A 2009 MAPS Impact Analysis report cited “a substantial turnaround in the (downtown)housing environment after 2000.” A subsequent 2011 Downtown Housing Strategies &Implementation Plan documents the addition of 1,110 housing units added to the downtownarea in the 2000 and 2010. This represents a 55% increase in downtown’s housing inventoryoccurring over just one decade.

Approximately 85% of the units built over the decade represented new construction. Anestimated 80% of the decade’s development occurred from 2006-10 (after completion of anearlier 2005 Downtown Housing Demand Study). For the second half of the decade, over 60% ofthe development comprised rental units with close to 40% as for-sale units.

Starting in the 1990s, the market for downtown housing consisted largely of younger single andmarried downtown workers. With later developments up to the recession, the market began to


shift to what a 2007 C2S market study described as “up-scale buyers including empty nestersand move-up buyers.” However, developers remained relatively cautious, generally building“not more than 40 units in a single phase.”

A subsequent 2008 market study was somewhat more conservative – at least for the C2S area.While forecasting potential for up to 2,160 multi-family units, average absorption was forecastat just over 160 units per year – meaning an approximate 15 year absorption period to C2S areabuild-out. An additional 800 single-family units were forecast, bringing the total potential atbuild-out to between 3,000-3,500 new residential units.

As has been experienced elsewhere nationally and within the downtown area due to therecession, the C2S market expectation for multi-family development is now at least temporarilymore oriented to rental product than occurred through much of the last decade. The extent towhich latent demand for condo and townhome product re-emerges with continuing economicrecovery is a matter of some uncertainty, both locally and nationally.

Public Development. MAPS has not only improved the public infrastructure essential fordowntown reinvestment. A related outcome has been the development of major new buildingfacilities including a new public library branch, Civic Center Music Hall renovation, CoxConvention Center 100,000 square feet expansion, construction of the 20,000-seat Ford (nowChesapeake) Arena, and completion of the 12,000-seat Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark.

SSTTRREEEETTCCAARR DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT PPRROOJJEECCTTSS

With this background discussion covering recent trends together with the regional anddowntown area economic outlook, it is useful to turn more specifically to a review of what isknown about downtown area development activity currently planned and underway. This isfollowed by preliminary identification of other projects from public and private sources.

Mapping Streetcar Development ProjectsAs illustrated by the map and chart on the next two pages, 53 development projects have beentallied to date as currently planned within the downtown area – in proximity to the MAPS 3streetcar. The project sites shown were either being actively planned or under construction asof 2011 when the initial MAPS 3 Streetcar Locally Preferred Alternative was identified. As ageneral guide, revisions have been made consistent with a focus on projects:

That are currently planned(not yet completed as of 2012 or currently under construction)

Generally anticipated for completion over the 2013-17 time period(prior to opening of a streetcar alignment)

Covering projects primarily intended for residential or commercial use(excluding planned projects that are primarily facilities for parking)


Figure 10. Downtown Oklahoma City Streetcar Development Projects

Source: Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC, from information as provided by The Alliancefor Economic Development, Downtown OKC, and based on interviews with downtown area development firms andorganizations. See attached listing for details. Revised as of August 2013.


Figure 11. Oklahoma City Streetcar Development Projects (As of August 2013)Map ID Project Use Comments1-8 Mickey Clagg (multiple sites) TBD9 St. Anthony Hospital Expansion Medical 125k sf expansion + new building, $83 mil10 Osler Building Hotel 44k sf, 54 rooms11 2 NW 9th Retail 7k sf12 Villa Teresa School Education Operations will end13 The Edge Residential, Retail, Parking 20k sf retail, 249 units, 400 pkg sps (some public), $36 mil

14 Warehouse Conversion Office15 Oklahoma Contemporary Arts Museum Museum 40k-50k sf16 Maywood Apts Phase II Residential 160 units17 Maywood Flats Residential 18 condos18 1101 N Broadway Office, Retail 60k sf19 1100 N Broadway Office, Retail 20k sf20 Marion Hotel Building Residential 9 units21 Housing Authority Site Residential (current) Possible redevelopment if housing is replaced22 OCU Law School Education Possible housing w/ structured parking rehab, 600

students, 100 faculty & staff23 The Metropolitan Residential, Parking 330 units, pkg garage, $45 mil, construction start 201424 Journal Record Building Office Rehab & associated parking garage to be constructed by

OKC across street25 Carnegie Center Residential, Commercial 24k sf, 19 units, $400k26 Sandridge Commons Office, Retail Renovation 10- & 29-story existing, 6-story new

construction, public park, $100 mil27 Mosaic Apartments Residential, Retail, Parking 96 units, 2-story parking, 1k sf retail28 Aloft Hotel Hotel, Retail 130 units, 3k sf retail, $18 mil29 Apartments (unnamed) Residential Developer has purchased adjacent sites30 The Hill Residential Urban Renewal Authority Project built by private

developer, 150 townhomes31 Staybridge Suites Hotel 137 units32 Bricktown Hotel (unnamed) Hotel Hotel developer has purchased site33 Hyatt Hotel Hotel 220 units, $27 mil34 Entertainment Center Entertainment35 Stewart Mill Fab Site Residential, Hotel, Retail 20-50k sf retail, 350-375 units, $75 mil36 Holiday Inn Express Hotel 55k sf37 Mideke Building Residential, Office 40k sf retail/office, some of the 36 units to be affordable

thru CDBG funds, $8.5 mil38 19 Sheridan Residential Possible student housing39 House of Bedlam Retail 30k sf, $5.5 mil40 Kevin Durant Restaurant Retail, Entertainment 10k sf, $700k41 Compress Site Residential Condominiums42 Century Center Office, Retail, Parking 95K sf, OK Publishing HQ (325-350 jobs), $19 mil43 Main Street Arcade Building Commercial 29k sf44 Police Headquarters/Municipal Courts Civic $50 mil45 Boutique Hotel Hotel46 609 W Sheridan Flex Space 14k sf, $1.8 mil47 Downtown Elementary School Education 80k sf, $14 mil48 Stage Center Office, Retail, Parking Proposed 20+ stories office w/ ground floor retail &

parking49 Convention Center Entertainment, Hotel Possible site for new center & hotel, $250 mil50 Future C2S Development Site TBD Alliance made offer on property51 Core to Shore Park Park Potential extension of streetcar around park, $130 mil52 11 NW 8th Office or Residential 25k sf53 Hart Building Office, Retail, Gallery 40k sf

Source: Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC, from information as provided by COTPA, TheAlliance, Downtown OKC, and based on interviews with downtown area development firms and organizations.


As depicted by the map and project listing, specific clusters of planned investment activity arenoted in terms of 2013 Route Framework alignment proximity – including the Bricktown,Broadway/Robinson CBD core and Midtown areas.

Streetcar development projects are also noted for the Deep Deuce and Film Row districts,somewhat further removed (generally beyond 3 blocks) from the 2013 Route Frameworkalignment. Projects currently noted for the C2S area include the C2S Park and an adjoiningAlliance redevelopment parcel.

Of these development projects, at least 12 are identified as scheduled for development prior tothe 2017 planned opening of the first Oklahoma City streetcar line. With the exception of theC2S Park (planned for 2018), specific timelines for the other projects have not yet beenspecifically identified though completion by 2017 is generally assumed for purposes of thisanalysis. TOD-related opportunities to influence the scope and timing of planned developmentswith a streetcar investment are likely greater for those projects still being planned – dependingon finalization of initial streetcar corridor alignment and funding commitments.

Market PerspectivesTo identify planned projects for thisdevelopment assessment, personalinterviews were conducted withprivate and public sectordevelopment organizations inJanuary 2013. Purposes of theinterviews were to:

Review successfulpartnerships and tools usedin recent Oklahoma Cityurban projects

Identify private investmentpriorities and the potentialfor streetcar to influencefuture decision-making

Determine currentincentives and dis-incentives to promotingurban development inconjunction with plannedstreetcar investment.

Figure 12. Development InterviewsName OrganizationMark Beffort Office Developer

Jeff Bezdek Transit Subcommittee/Modern Transit Project

Andy Burnett Sperry Van NessMickey Clagg Midtown RenaissanceRussell Claus Oklahoma City Planning Department

Joe Hodges St. Anthony’s Hospital/SSM Healthcare

Randy Hogan Stonegate-HoganLarry Hopper COTPA/Metro TransitJane Jenkins Downtown Oklahoma City Inc.Steve Mason Cardinal EngineeringRichard McKown Center City Development, LLCCathy O’Connor Alliance for Economic DevelopmentJim Parrack Price Edwards & CompanyMarsh Pittman Hampton InnNick Preftakes Precor Realty AdvisorsDavid Todd Oklahoma City MAPS 3


A list of persons interviewed is provided by the foregoing chart. Interaction from these one-on-one interviews proved instrumental to identify planned projects and to shape a subsequentFebruary 2013 Fresh Eyes workshop.

Market Overview. Virtually all of those interviewed have been bullish on prospects for near-and mid-term development opportunity – both generally throughout the Oklahoma metroregion and more specifically in the downtown area. As a real estate development professionalnoted, OKC did not experience mass speculation pre-recession so there is less excess inventorynow. Current prospects have been fueled by the energy boom across the central U.S.

The rediscovery of urban living is the most widely citedturnaround in market prospects for the downtown area –including specialty districts such as Deep Deuce and Midtown.Residential demand is anchored by empty nesters and youngprofessionals – augmented by those associated with the militaryand medical/dental students.

One interviewee noted clear evidence of “pent-up demand fromthe younger generation” for urban-oriented development. Thoseemployed in the energy industry average 30 years of age, manyof whom are disposed to live downtown, closer to both work andentertainment options.

The urban OKC market remains extremely price sensitive,meaning that higher density non-wood frame structures (aboveabout five floors) have not yet proven financially feasible. As isthe case elsewhere, rental apartment projects are achieving thewidest acceptance at this time. Getting more employer-relatedhousing, as with OHC and St. Anthony’s, is also suggested.

Those interviewed have been skeptical of the market potentialfor ownership/condo product. However, some intervieweessuggest that there may yet be an opportunity for the right condoproduct to be developed at an affordable price point.

One developer noted that single-level condo flats in the 1,200-2,000 square foot range experienced good pre-sales prior to therecession. This party would consider condos again, if securedparking could be obtained.

Many, but not all, of those interviewed suggest that OKC’s auto-oriented environment is not likely to change in the near future,but that downtown will continue to attract more developmentwith living downtown an increasingly popular lifestyle choice.

The Downtown OKCMarket Comments

“The market is great forhousing, office, andparking – but not forretail”

“Need more heads inbeds for more retail.”

“Drivers of residential areempty nesters and youngprofessionals.”

“Young demographic likesold warehouses withcement floors”

“… high end condosdon’t work – all havefailed.”

“… condo opportunity isbeing missed”

“… emphasis is still housingbut with growing interestin office, especially frommajor corporate interests.”

“Upper floors areoccupied, ground floorretail less so.”

“We’re starving forresidents”


Office represents a growing opportunity for a “resurgence of downtown.” Potential demand isbeing generated by major corporate (often energy-related) firms. The interest is potentiallyspreading to locally based creative firms, in part, because downtown is perceived as “cool,there are things to do.” However, rents are not yet adequate to support the cost of new Class Aconstruction, except for owner-user structures where the property owner is essentially paying ahigher cost of occupancy than the rental market currently supports.

Core area retail has been on a generally downward trend since the 70s. Conversely, Bricktownhas experienced substantial retail related investment – focused on restaurant, recreation,entertainment and lodging venues. The core Broadway corridor has experienced some signs ofpotential turnaround with smaller independent stores, described as offering “organic growth.”Getting more retail likely depends on ability to shape a “living downtown.”

Downtown Area Districts. The distinct character andopportunities associated with each individual downtown/neighborhood district is repeatedly noted by those interviewed.

For the downtown core, a specific challenge cited is gettingworkers out of their office towers for shopping – during lunch orafter work. Office workers in downtown could use a morediverse base of convenience retail, such as grocery and pharmacyas well as high-end specialty. Broadway has good occupancy,except at ground level. Other core area locations promising forretail may be Park Avenue and West Main.

For housing, the greatest opportunity cited is “around the core”in adjoining neighborhoods, notably of Midtown and DeepDeuce. However, one party suggested that there may be “one-offopportunities” for future high rise residential towers of 8-15stories (as with Park Harvey and Montgomery at Main andWalker).

Bricktown has come into its own as a regionally, if not nationally,recognized destination district. Opportunities are noted foradded entertainment and lodging development – linked to sportsvenues and the convention center. Opportunities for tighterintegration of Bricktown with the adjoining Deep Deuceresidential neighborhood also might be possible withredevelopment of large vacant or underutilized parcels stillremaining as barriers between the two districts.

Midtown is more about reuse and repurposing of existing underutilized parcels for residential.Infill mixed use with retail and office also represents a strategic opportunity. This is especiallythe case in proximity to the St. Anthony’s medical complex and for added ground floor retailopportunity on the north end of Broadway’s Automobile Alley.

District SpecificComments

“Broadway has gonemore to local retail,Bricktown to restaurantand personal servicebusinesses.”

“Locals don’t eat inBricktown”

“Automobile Alley hasgreat store fronts – stillunderutilized”

The next wave ofdevelopment: “Midtownnear St. Anthony’s – to thewest and then south.”

“Current city focus is tothe west of the core onthe Film District forarchitects, restaurants,creatives”

“Core to Shore is too faraway, not yet ready fordevelopment”


Some concern is expressed that premature focus on incenting Core to Shore (C2S) developmentmay “spread the market.” In this view, what’s important now is “focusing the buzz, intensityand urban stacking” in the existing downtown core.

However, C2S is viewed by others as offering great opportunity into the next generation, withunderutilized sites ready for redevelopment as a continuation of core area redevelopment.From a planning perspective, C2S may represent a transitional zone, likely with application of aform-based zoning code offering great flexibility for mixed use and with no limits on potentialdensity.

Catalyst Role for Economic Development. Oklahoma Cityhas a clear sense of the role that the public sector can play inshaping the future of the city. This is illustrated by the creation ofmultiple urban renewal districts in downtown as well aselsewhere in OKC, coupled with strong and continuing votersupport for MAPS projects – including MAPS 3 streetcar funding.

As in many cities, there is cautious optimism with diverseopinions expressed as to the city shaping and community servingrole that streetcar can and should play in Oklahoma City.

In the words of one experienced real estate developer, many ofthe planned projects now queued up would likely happenwithout streetcar, but streetcar would “firm up” plans for usessuch as residential and added hotels. By comparison, retail isdescribed as essentially a “loss leader,” and dining as “a struggle”that streetcar would improve if service ran from downtown pastthe convention center to Bricktown.

A “10-year window of opportunity” for significant urbanrevitalization is cited as reasonable forecast horizon fordowntown OKC. The core area needs “rooftops” in the form ofadded residential units plus hotels. And streetcar can help incentthis development.

To the extent that a streetcar circulator becomes perceived as a viable alternative to short tripdriving within the central city, there may also be an opportunity to negotiate to reduce parkingratios. Reducing the amount of land and building structure devoted to constructing parkingwould help to improve development feasibility for office, residential, retail and entertainmentvenues.

And for a number of those interviewed, the real test of the extent to which streetcar serves toleverage development will depend on perceptions of frequency, access to key downtowndestinations, and convenience. To be effective, the service will need to be more frequent,operating over longer hours, and perceived as more permanent than the Downtown Discovery

Cautious Optimism forStreetcar as

Development Catalyst

Public sector role: “step inwhen the private sectordoesn’t”

“… need to determine ifstreetcar is to have aneconomic developmentor ridership focus.”

“Housing is most likely tobe influenced bystreetcar; for retail andoffice there will be littledifference.”

“Streetcar will help to getpeople into downtown …more helpful for housingand retail.”

“… will feel closer todowntown.”


bus replacing the Red Trolley (which has been mainly oriented to lunch-time traffic and servingarea hotels, the Oklahoma City National Memorial and downtown transit center).

Streetcar Alignment. Not surprisingly, a number of comments were heard regardingstreetcar alignment and operational considerations as part of this early 2013 interview process.Recognizing that alignment options are still under consideration and that this assessmentaddresses a 2013 Route Framework, at this point alignment considerations remain ofimportance with respect to assuring that a full range of development opportunities may beconsidered. At the time of the interviews, the 2011 LPA was the route identified for review.

There was considerable discussion of the role that streetcar could play (or not play) with aBroadway/Robinson couplet. From the interviews, there appeared to be strong consensus overthe role that streetcar could play on Broadway to encourage improved ground floor use and fillin empty spaces along the streetfront.

As one interviewee suggested: “Use streetcar to make Broadway better with infilldevelopment.” Another recommended that streetcar on Broadway serve to reinforce a live-work connection, as with the gas lamp district in San Diego or Country Club Plaza in Kansas City.

There was less consensus about TOD potential for Robinson – due to its largely already built-upstatus for government and non-profit, including religious, uses. An option suggested for addedconsideration is making streetcar two-way on Broadway instead. Alternatively, if a loop route ispreferred, there may be better opportunities to the west on Hudson or Walker – though thismay increase the walk distance for either the incoming or outgoing trip for many patrons.

Another approach suggested is for “streetcar to help redevelop parcels that are most difficult,”rather than districts for which development “will happen anyway.” However, streetcar cannotbe relied on to make a bad location work on its own – unless other development interest can bereasonably foreseen.

Other comments and suggestions made during the interview process included:

Providing an option for streetcar to interface with the transit center on Hudson Preference by some for NW 10th rather than 11th/13th for a Midtown segment Assure east-west connectivity from Bricktown to the Film District as “the main visitor

link” as well as north-south Broadway “infill opportunities for higher potential” Encourage live-work options as in the gas lamp district in San Diego or Country Club

Plaza in Kansas City Extend the eastern Bricktown terminus to Joe Carter Why not a wider loop like Broadway/Hudson?

And interest was expressed to avoid overhead wires where possible – especially on portions ofthe Broadway segment, for example, by using natural gas and/or battery means to powerstreetcar vehicles.


Streetcar Success? How will OKC know if MAPS 3 streetcar is a success? Some suggestionswere provided by the stakeholders interviewed:

“…increased, sustained ridership with development.” “Does it go where people want and get them there in a timely fashion?” “How often it runs, timely accessibility, not ignore development to west and no

overhead wires” “… put tracks in the ground – as a magnet for development.” “Could get several thousand housing units” “Has to be part of the larger OKC transport system”

Incenting TODConsistent with Oklahoma City development interviews and experience nationally, it isapparent that transit-oriented development (TOD) potentials may be enhanced in similar butalso distinct ways for 2013 Route Framework and C2S benefit areas, summarized as follows.

2013 Route Framework Alignment:

Establish a tight loop – either with streetcar running bi-directionally on the same streetor as a couplet allowing for an additional block in-between allowing for maximum TODbenefit. While widening the loop to two or more blocks theoretically increases the areaof potential development benefit, this may be more than offset by the added out-of-direction streetcar and pedestrian travel time and inconvenience involved.

Offer frequent and extended hour service – making streetcar useful for day-timecommutes and lunch travel, as well as for evening and weekend circulation by localresidents and visitors to retail, entertainment and cultural venues.

Emphasize walkability – with investment in high quality streetscape amenities andpedestrian connections, plus options for other non-auto modes (such as bus and bike).

Scale back on parking – providing what is essential for existing and new development.Increased transit use with the ‘short hops’ between downtown area destinations mayallow for reduced parking requirements and avoidance of unnecessary expense thatimpairs the feasibility of downtown area development projects.

Engage adjoining and nearby property owner and development interests – toencourage TOD whether in the form of new development or upgrading existing propertyuses both ground and upper level.

Respond to major planned development projects – with flexibility to adjust plannedstreetcar stop placement, and street amenity improvements on behalf of those projectsand developers prepared to make TOD commitments as for mixed use and increaseddensity in advance of streetcar opening. As has occurred in other cities with newstreetcar systems, development agreements may prove integral to formalizing


expectations regarding improved transit service and mixed use development in areassuch as Core to Shore and the Midtown/St. Anthony’s area.

Make alignment and funding decisions quickly – so as to better position alreadyplanned projects for improved TOD orientation and to maintain downtown OKCrevitalization momentum.

Core to Shore (C2S) Streetcar Extension (added opportunities):

Make a logical extension to the 2013 Route Framework – for efficiency of service andease of travel throughout an ever-wider served downtown urban environment.

Locate streetcar within walking proximity to but not necessarily directly on the C2Spark – to increase opportunities for the highest density development on both sides ofthe street unless retail or other major attractor development is considered in the park.

Actively assemble and package land at TOD catalyst sites – using master developmentagreements as for large site opportunities involving public-private partnerships to morereadily incent private investment and build broader C2S momentum with futurestreetcar extensions.


FFOORREECCAASSTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS AAPPPPRROOAACCHH

Based on the foregoing review of the current built and un-built environment together with theOKC metro and downtown economic outlook, this development assessment now shifts toconsideration of prospective development potentials. With opening of fixedguideway/streetcar service targeted for 2017, this analysis identifies and evaluates prospectsfor transit supportive development that might occur over an approximately 10-year timehorizon from 2017-27 as envisioned for the 2013 Recommended Route Framework.

This discussion begins by outlining an analytical framework for a step-by-step forecastallocation methodology. This is followed by more detailed specification of the without streetcarand with streetcar development scenarios. The analysis approach is set within the context ofthe 2013 Route Framework alignment. Because there is no specific alignment to evaluate in theCore to Shore area, differences in approach to C2S are also noted, as applicable.

Framework for Analysis. Key analytical parameters can be characterized as follows:

For the entire length of a modern streetcar project alignment, two initial developmentscenarios can be prepared and evaluated – a base case (or without streetcar) forecastindicating development that might be anticipated without the transit investment and awith streetcar scenario predicated on added development that might be expected alongthe corridor as a result and in conjunction with the streetcar system investment.

The base case (or without streetcar) scenario is predicated on a continuation of thepattern of development that was experienced along the corridor over the past decade.

The with streetcar scenario is based on actual experience in other cities that have madestreetcar investment – including detailed post-streetcar development documentationthat has been compiled for recent streetcar investments.15

As noted, the time frame for the forecast analysis is 10 years from the date of initialphase streetcar completion and opening – currently anticipated for about 2017. Theanalysis assumes that streetcar development projects as previously identified will largelybe completed during the 2013-17 time frame prior to inauguration of streetcar service.

The analysis distinguishes between potentials in benefit zones based on distance fromthe fixed guideway alignment. This corresponds with experience indicating that greaterrates of development can be expected on vacant and underutilized properties in closerproximity to streetcar.For this analysis, Zone A includes all parcels and street rights of way within one block ofa streetcar alignment. Where streetcar runs in a couplet arrangement (on two parallelstreets), this includes properties situated between the two streets. Zone B is defined toinclude all parcels and street rights of way situated at a distance of 2-3 blocks from thestreetcar alignment (i.e., either side of the couplet).

Three overall use categories are forecast separately – residential, commercial, andexempt (generally non-taxable) uses. The City of Oklahoma City data identifies a fourth


use category – mixed use – which is defined as a combination of industrial, retail and/orresidential uses in one building. For purposes of this analysis, the mix of uses isestimated based on data available and allocated between residential and commercialcategories as applicable.16

Because no specific alignment has been evaluated at this date for the C2S area, separatebenefit Zone A/ B delineation is not possible. Rather, the approach taken is that any alignmentcan reasonably be expected to serve the area between Shields Boulevard and Shartel Avenue.As specific C2S alignment options are identified for evaluation in the future, it will becomepossible to refine the approach reflecting greater intensity of development activity in closestproximity to the streets of the streetcar route.

Development Scenario Specification. As a more detailed methodology, the following 10-step approach is taken to forecast development potentials (including projections of addedbuilding square footage and valuation) by Zone A and Zone B proximity classification:

1. As a starting point, a GIS dataset as compiled by E. D. Hovee has been utilized to providedata covering such parcel-specific items as ownership, zoning, land area, building squarefootage, year built, and valuation of land and improvements. This dataset serves as thebasis for the discussion of parcel-based Zone A/B corridor inventories and existingconditions as described earlier in this report.

2. This dataset has also been adapted to calculate additional information as forimprovements to land valuation, floor area ratios, and typical per square foot assessedvaluation by land use – all of which serve as inputs to forecast development potentialsconsistent with previous Oklahoma City development, existing base case forecasts offuture population and employment, and observed streetcar experience elsewhere.

3. Base case development (without streetcar) is forecast to occur in a manner consistentwith updated 2017-27 housing and employment projections for TAZs allocated by thegeographies identified for this analysis – Zones A/B and by segment for the 2013 RouteFramework and for the C2S area in its entirety. See Appendix D for added detailregarding update revisions to the OCARTS/TAZ-based forecast. Base case conditions arealso aimed to match key parameters identified through the review of GIS data as ameans of conversion from housing and employment growth projections to relatedbuilding space and land needs.

4. With streetcar development is forecast to occur at ratios in excess of base casedevelopment as has been experienced with quantified retrospective analyses for othercities involving a sufficient track record of development activity to evaluate since systemopening.For the Oklahoma City modern streetcar 2013 Route Framework alignment, thepotential bump in development rates is estimated at 4.5 times the without streetcar ratewithin Zone A (one block distance) and to 2.0 times the without streetcar rate withinZone B (extending 2-3 blocks from the alignment).17 For the C2S area (for which there isno specific streetcar street alignment as yet to be tested), the streetcar bump (or


development premium) across a single overall area benefit zone is assumed at anaverage of 3.0 times base case development for this preliminary assessment.

5. As experienced elsewhere, increased development densities (or floor area ratios) areexpected under the with streetcar scenario, with FARs roughly double recent experiencefor Zone A and 70-80% higher for Zone B properties for the benefit area of the 2013Route Framework alignment. However, considerable variation between properties inthe same zone can be expected.For the C2S area, a somewhat lower overall density increase in the range of 30-40% isassumed – reflecting the expectation of more moderate residential densities combinedwith a significant lifestyle retail development as envisioned by the 2008 C2S plan. Theseassumptions may be subject to revision with separate C2S market analysis updating as isnow underway.

6. Properties within the corridor study area that are currently zoned for single-familyresidential use, designated as historic sites and/or as exempt properties are generallynot expected to change under either without streetcar or with streetcar conditions.Non-assessed sites also are not anticipated to change except for identified opportunitysites that remain as not developed by 2017.

7. On a preliminary basis, new residential unit sizes are estimated to average betweenabout 1,000-1,100 square feet per residential unit in the 2013 Route Framework benefitarea. This reflects an anticipated mix of rental (apartment) and owner(condominium/townhome) development with unit sizes above what is indicated withthe total existing inventory but below what was experienced with development over thelast decade.For the C2S portion of the evaluation, the base case assumes average unit size of 1,675square feet, which is below the lower end of what was identified with a 2007 C2Smarket study. The with streetcar scenario reduces average unit size to an estimated1,350 square feet, reflecting a continued shift to a more urban residential product mix.

8. Within the identified 2013 Route Framework benefit area, residential (including mixeduse) currently accounts for an estimated 5% of building square footage, increasing to12% of all new developed building space over the last decade. With this analysis, theresidential share of new development in the Oklahoma City 2013 Route Frameworkarea is forecast to increase to about 30% of development from 2017-2027 with basecase conditions (consistent with updated TAZ projections) and potentially to just overhalf (53%) of developed building area with streetcar. While reflecting a rapid shifttowards residential and mixed use, assumptions are more conservative than thedemonstrated streetcar experience in other cities.18

Within the C2S area, residential use accounts for 9% of existing building square footageand just 2% of new development occurring over the last decade based on GIS data.Building from a combination of revised OCARTS/TAZ projections and previous C2Splanning, it is anticipated that housing could account for as much as 90% of base casedevelopment in the years ahead, reduced to just between 70-75% of area developmentwith streetcar. Streetcar service can be expected to facilitate not only added gains in


residential units but also realization of some significant portion of a lifestyle or towncenter destination retail component as has been envisioned by C2S planning to date.

9. With the 2013 Route Framework alignment, the bulk of new development activity (80%)is assigned to vacant or unimproved parcels with a current improvement to land value(I:L) ratio of up to 0.5 for the base case scenario. For the with streetcar scenario, theshare picked up by low value land is reduced to about 68%, with higher value propertiesassigned the remainder of development. Due to a relative lack of under-improvedproperties relative to development plans coupled with assumptions of a continuingpublic land assembly role, about 50% of development in the C2S area is assigned toparcels with a current I:L ratio of 0.5 or less.19

Utilizing these assumptions, there appears to be ample redevelopment capacity for boththe 2013 Route Framework and C2S areas evaluated under both base case and withstreetcar development scenarios. With the exception of some remaining opportunitysites not developed by 2017, other non-assessed properties are generally assumed to benot available for redevelopment over the 2017-27 forecast horizon with the 2013Framework.As noted, the forecast for the C2S, while covering a similar 10-year time frame, is nottied to a specific schedule. If constructed, a streetcar line could be place in service atsome date subsequent to 2017.

10. Assessed valuation is forecast at “per square foot” rates consistent with data regardingvaluations of property developed over the 2000-11 time period, as calculated from thefull existing development database.20 All projections are based on current year assessedestimates and are not adjusted for future inflation.For higher density projects as anticipated in the scenario, per square foot valuations areincreased by about 25%. This is consistent with building with streetcar costs andvaluations typically associated with more urban development patterns.Future year valuation is reduced by the amount of improvements valuation that wouldbe removed from a parcel where existing structures are redeveloped. Consequently,calculations result in an estimate of net added (rather than gross) property valuation.Added land values associated with increased development have also been estimated.The gain in land value is estimated based on values along the corridor currentlyassociated with higher densities of development (measured in terms of land value perFAR).21

Increased land values can be expected to benefit not only the properties on which newdevelopment is located, but also to enhance the land values of nearby properties onwhich new development does not occur within the 10-year forecast period.


WWIITTHH && WWIITTHHOOUUTT SSTTRREEEETTCCAARR DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT SSCCEENNAARRIIOOSS

Development scenarios are formulated consistent with the forecast analysis approach outlinedin the previous section of this report. Results are cumulative over 10 year forecast time period.This 10 year time period is assumed to be 2017-2027 for the 2013 Recommended RouteFramework. A specific time schedule is not yet identified for possible future C2S extension – asno start date is yet established.

Scenario Results. Summary results of the without streetcar and with streetcar developmentanalyses are as depicted by the following chart. Forecast results are also compared with existingconditions as of 2011.

Figure 13. Without & With Streetcar Development Scenarios (10 Years)Core to Shore

Zone A Zone B Total AreaExisting Conditions (2011)

Land Area (Sq Ft) 13,821,000 9,964,300 23,785,300 4,263,000Building Area (Sq Ft) 15,162,100 5,199,100 20,361,200 842,600Current FAR Average 1.10 0.52 0.86 0.20

Market Valuation $849,127,000 $243,647,000 $1,092,774,000 $30,463,000Taxable Valuation $92,422,000 $25,424,000 $117,846,000 $3,125,000

Base Case Scenario (w/o Streetcar)Building Area (Sq Ft) 1,792,000 1,121,000 2,913,000 896,000FAR of New Development 2.06 1.25 1.65 1.24Market Valuation $202,186,000 $112,552,000 $314,738,000 $124,796,000Taxable Valuation $21,027,000 $11,557,000 $32,584,000 $12,727,000

With Streetcar ScenarioBuilding Area (Sq Ft) 8,064,000 2,243,000 10,307,000 2,688,000FAR of New Development 4.20 2.00 3.39 1.64Market Valuation $1,148,005,000 $314,545,000 $1,462,550,000 $414,801,000Taxable Valuation $117,061,000 $32,554,000 $149,615,000 $42,948,000

With Streetcar "Premium"Building Area (Sq Ft) 6,272,000 1,122,000 7,394,000 1,792,000FAR of New Development 2.14 0.75 1.74 0.39

Market Valuation $945,819,000 $201,993,000 $1,147,812,000 $290,005,000Taxable Valuation $96,034,000 $20,997,000 $117,031,000 $30,221,000

Development Scenarios(10 Years)


Note: All estimates are in current dollars, not adjusted for future inflation. More detailed segment data isprovided with Appendix F. Information is preliminary and subject to revision.

Source: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC.

Key observations related to this summary chart are outlined as follows.


2013 Route Framework Alignment (10 Years from 2017-27):

Base case development (without streetcar) is forecast based on adjusted OCARTS-related TAZ housing and employment forecasts. Results are a projected 2.9 millionsquare feet of new commercial, residential, mixed use and exempt development addedover a 10-year time period – representing an approximate 14% increase in the 2013Route Framework alignment area’s existing (2011) building stock.Market valuation (both real and personal property) increases by an estimated $315million, which is approximately 29% higher than current valuation within the benefitarea. Taxable valuation increases by about $32-33 million. Note that all valuationestimates are in 2013 dollars.

With Streetcar development is projected to result in construction of up to 10+ millionsquare feet of added commercial and residential building space, representing as muchas a 50% increase in the corridor’s building inventory compared to existing conditions.Market valuation with this scenario increases by nearly $1.5 billion – more thandoubling the valuation for the area most benefitted within three blocks of either side ofthe streetcar alignment. Taxable valuation increases by an estimated $150 million.

A With Streetcar “Premium” is calculated as the difference between developmentanticipated with streetcar minus development without streetcar. In effect, the withstreetcar “premium” is calculated as an added 7.4 million square feet above and beyondwhat could be expected under current (or trend) development conditions withoutstreetcar.Market valuation could be $1.1-$1.2 billion higher and taxable valuation $117 millionmore with the streetcar investment than without streetcar. In effect, the streetcarinvestment offers the potential to deliver 3.5 times the level of new development andmore than 4.5 times the added assessed value as might be expected with base caseexpectations in the absence of a transformative investment like the proposed streetcar.

Core to Shore (10 Years):

Base case development (without streetcar) is projected to represent close to anestimated 900,000 square feet of added development – reflecting adjusted TAZ-basedresidential and employment forecasts. While tentative depending on updated C2Smarket analysis now underway, this preliminary base case forecast could represent asmuch as a 100% increase in the C2S area 2011 existing building stock – beforeaccounting for structures that may be removed with redevelopment. Market valuationincreases by an estimated $125 million over 10 years, about four times the currentvaluation within the C2S area – with taxable valuation up by an estimated $12.7 million.

With Streetcar development is projected to result in construction of close to 2.7 millionsquare feet of commercial and residential building space, which represents anapproximate three-fold increase in the corridor’s building inventory compared toexisting conditions. Market valuation increases by $415 million – with taxable valuationup by an estimated $43 million.


The With Streetcar “Premium” is calculated as an added 1.8 million square feet aboveand beyond what might be reasonably expected under base case developmentconditions over 10 years without streetcar. Market valuation would be $290 millionhigher and taxable valuation would increase by $30 million with streetcar investment ascompared with the base case. In effect, the streetcar investment offers the potential todeliver about three times the pace of new development and added market value thanwould occur if recent development trends are continued in the absence of atransformative C2S district investment like the proposed streetcar.

Consistent with recent development trends, the with streetcar scenario involves a continuedshift toward residential use along the streetcar corridors – whether for the 2013 Framework orthe C2S area. However, commercial/ employment related development (including retail, office,industrial and public/institutional use) is also greater in the with streetcar scenario than withoutthis type of place-making investment.

In both the without streetcar and with streetcar scenarios, valuation increases more rapidlythan square footage due to the higher valuation associated with new uses anticipated –especially residential. This is even more pronounced in the with streetcar scenario, due to thecontinued shift toward residential and mixed use coupled with increased per square foot valuestypically associated with higher density developments.

Added Housing & Employment. Based on the scenarios outlined above, it is also possibleto illustrate anticipated changes in housing units and employment for both the 2013 RouteFramework and C2S benefit areas. Employment estimates are net of existing employment inexisting structures that may be removed with redevelopment.

Figure 14. Added Housing & Employment Potential (10 Years)Core to Shore

Zone A Zone B Total AreaResidential Units

2017 Forecast Estimate 1,648 2,714 4,362 709

Added Units (2017-27):Base Case 452 395 847 484With Streetcar 4,050 1,300 5,350 1,445Streetcar Premium 3,598 905 4,503 961

Employment2017 Forecast Estimate 23,990 10,891 34,881 2,137

Added Jobs (2017-27):Base Case 2,352 1,206 3,558 154With Streetcar 7,025 1,420 8,445 1,130Streetcar Premium 4,673 214 4,887 976

10-Year Residential &Employment Analysis


Note: More detailed 2013 Route Framework segment data is provided with Appendix F.Source: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC.


As is illustrated by the foregoing chart, the 2013 Framework alignment indicates potential forclose to an added 850 housing units and 3,560 new jobs (net of job loss with older structuredemolitions) under base case conditions from 2017-27, as is consistent with adjusted TAZ-levelprojections. New development increases to as much as 5,350 added housing units and potentialcreation of 8,445 net new jobs with streetcar – developed over the 2017-27 time period inconjunction with and subsequent to opening of streetcar service along a potential 2013 RouteFramework alignment.

The C2S area is associated with an added 480+ housing units and a net gain of 150+ jobs underbase case conditions (without streetcar) from 2017-27, also as consistent with updated TAZprojections. New residential construction increases to 1,445 units and 1,130 net added jobswith streetcar over this 10-year forecast period.

Streetcar implementation offers the potential to create as much as six times the number ofadded housing units in the 3-block benefit area of the 2013 Route Framework environment andthree times the level of residential construction in the C2S area over a 10-year period, ascompared with the base case (without streetcar).

With employment, the 2013 Route Framework offers a potential to more than double basecase 10-year job gains with streetcar. For the C2S area, added jobs with streetcar are potentiallyas much as seven times what is projected with currently relatively modest base case conditions.

Streetcar Development Project Implications. Development anticipated with streetcarcan be expected to encompass many of the projects now on the drawing board, especiallythose that will come on line by 2017. Both pre- and post-2017, opportunity sites for plannedstreetcar development projects include what have been identified for exempt sites as withplanned relocation of the convention center and redevelopment of the Stage Center propertyor with future mixed use redevelopment of existing parking sites.

As noted with the development model analysis, there is more than ample land and FAR capacityto accommodate streetcar development projects and added forecast development withstreetcar development through 2027. Capacity for continued development in the downtownarea can be expected to continue well beyond the 2027 (10-year post-streetcar) forecast periodof this analysis for the 2013 Route Framework area.

To the extent that TOD projects are successfully demonstrated in the early years just after thetargeted 2017 opening of an OKC modern streetcar project, development momentum may thenaccelerate in the out-years extending beyond the 10-year time frame to 2027 that is theprimary focus of this forecast. Due to the large inventory of vacant and underutilized land alongthe corridor, a more intensified pace of development also should be able to occur in a mannerthat reinforces the character of the corridor’s existing residential and commercialneighborhoods.

While not associated with a specific start date, future streetcar extension to C2S could not onlyprovide a logical tie-in to the 2013 Route Framework alignment, but also reinforce


development around the Core to Shore Park. Future phases of C2S development could then beexpected to spread beyond the immediate vicinity of the park toward the perimeter of the C2Splan area.

Getting to Transit-Oriented Development. In summary, this assessment indicates considerablepotential for an Oklahoma City modern streetcar to continue the re-focusing of developmentback toward a more livable urban center that better serves the diverse interests of OKCresidents, employees, shoppers, and visitors. Successfully implemented and with cooperativepublic-private partnership initiatives, long-term TOD benefits could well outpace theexpectations most readily quantified with this analysis.

VVAALLUUEE CCAAPPTTUURREE OOPPPPOORRTTUUNNIITTIIEESS

As a final step in the economic development analysis, estimates have been made of valuecapture opportunities for fiscal revenue enhancement of two types:

Incremental property tax revenues – estimated to phase in on a cumulative basis overthe 2017-27 time period. Property tax revenues are calculated at the current millagerate of $114.75 per $1,000 in adjusted assessed valuation.

Incremental sales tax revenues – also forecast over 10 years based on the proportionsof commercial activity anticipated to be subject to sales tax. Sales tax revenues arecalculated at a rate of 8.375% of taxable sales (including a 4.5% state share and 3.875%Oklahoma City share).

Figure 15. Cumulative 10-Year Value Capture PotentialCore to Shore

Zone A Zone B Total AreaIncremental Property Tax Revenue (10-Year Cumulative)

Base Case Scenario $13,266,000 $7,291,400 $20,557,400 $8,029,500With Streetcar Scenario $73,854,300 $20,538,500 $94,392,800 $27,096,200With Streetcar Premium $60,588,300 $13,247,100 $73,835,400 $19,066,700

Incremental Sales Tax Revenue (10-Year Cumulative)Base Case Scenario $22,939,300 $7,450,700 $30,390,000 $8,913,200With Streetcar Scenario $76,740,300 $11,746,000 $88,486,300 $41,456,500With Streetcar Premium $53,801,000 $4,295,500 $58,096,500 $32,543,300

Revenue Analysis(10 Years)


Note: All estimates are in current dollars, not adjusted for future inflation. More detailed segment data isprovided with Appendix F. Information is preliminary and subject to revision.

Source: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC.

Development within the 3-block benefit area of the 2013 Recommended Route Framework isestimated to support a cumulative 10-year increase in property tax revenues of $20-$21 millionwith the without streetcar (base case) scenario – increasing more than four-fold to anestimated $94 million over 10 years with streetcar. Cumulative 10-year sales tax revenues are


about $30 million with the base case scenario – more than doubling to potentially as much as$88 million in the with streetcar scenario.

For the C2S area, case property tax revenues are projected to increase by $8 million underwithout streetcar (base case) conditions over 10 years. As with the 2013 Framework area,property tax revenues increase more than three-fold to $27 million with streetcar. Cumulative10-year sales tax revenues increase from close to $9 million under base case conditions topotentially as much as a cumulative $41 million with streetcar.

Sales tax revenue potentials are relatively greater (in relation to total development) for the C2Sarea than with the 2013 Framework benefit area. This is because retail related uses arepotentially anticipated to account for the bulk (75%+) of commercial development with C2Sunder base conditions and at least 50% pursuant to with streetcar conditions. This reflects the2008 C2S plan commercial development emphasis on a potential lifestyle retail development, afocus that may be revisited with updated C2S planning now underway.

By comparison, retail currently accounts for only about 15% of commercial space in the 2013Route Framework benefit area. This share is not anticipated to change appreciably under basecase conditions, though the retail share could increase somewhat pursuant to a with streetcarscenario. Also noted is that sales per square foot typically can be expected to be higher in aplanned destination retail center (whether as a lifestyle center or in a town center streetconfiguration), attracting a higher share of national tenants than generally occurs in a typicaldowntown environment with a stronger mix of local and independent retailers.


AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX AA.. PPRREEPPAARREERR PPRROOFFIILLEE

This Oklahoma City Modern Streetcar Project Land Use & Economic Development Assessmenthas been prepared for the Jacobs Engineering, Shiels Obletz Johnsen, COTPA, and the City ofOklahoma City by the economic and development consulting firm E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC(EDH). Since 1984, EDH has conducted market and feasibility assessments, impact analyses andtargeted business development strategies for public agency, private and non-profitorganizations – including residential, commercial, industrial, tourism-recreation and mixed useassignments.

EDH has considerable experience in evaluating the transit-development nexus with particularfocus on the economic benefits of varied transit modes including bus, commuter rail, light rail,streetcar, and marine transport applications. Based in the Pacific Northwest, the firm hasconducted project assessments both regionally and nationally over the last 25+ years.

Within the Portland metro area, the firm has been involved with economic developmentevaluations associated with the Portland Transit (bus) Mall, three MAX light railcorridors, the Portland Streetcar as implemented, streetcar extension to Portland’seastside now completed, and long-term potential citywide expansion with the PortlandStreetcar System Plan.

Streetcar-related development assessments have been prepared for planned projects inBoise, Reno, San Antonio, Anaheim and Santa Ana (California). In all each city, EDHprovided analysis of development potentials with and without streetcar, addedvaluation that might be covered by a property assessment district (for partial capitalfunding), and tax increment revenues. In Boise (as in Portland), EDH has also evaluatedcarbon footprints of streetcar related development compared to the suburbanalternative. In San Antonio, eight potential streetcar alignments were evaluated.

EDH contributed to an assessment of the economic and environmental benefits to beincorporated as part of a research report Land Use Planning for Transit SupportiveDevelopment: A Practitioners Guide – being assembled by the New Jersey Institute ofTechnology (NJIT) for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). This review focuses oncase studies for cities with demonstrated transit supportive development experienceand for cities currently in the planning process.

As firm principal, Eric Hovee has participated with the National Main Street Center andNational Trust for Historic Preservation by conducting resource team visits in more than20 communities across the U.S. – with focus on downtown area and communityeconomic restructuring.

Mr. Hovee also has served as a speaker and instructor for national conferences oforganizations including the National Main Street Center and Reconnecting America.

Preparers of this land use and economic development assessment are Eric Hovee (Principal)and Andrea Logue (Research Coordinator).


AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX BB.. LLAANNDD UUSSEE CCLLAASSSSIIFFIICCAATTIIOONNSS

The majority of the analysis detailed in this this land use and economic developmentassessment of the proposed Oklahoma City Modern Streetcar Project is based on GIS datasetsprovided by the City of Oklahoma City. A portion of the data originates from the OklahomaCounty Assessment Department.

Tax lot parcels were classified by current land use. For purposes of this assessment, land useclassifications were divided into five groups: residential, commercial, mixed use, exempt, andvacant. Land use classification of a tax lot parcel is determined by the designation in the datasetof the field Current Land Use Category. According to information provided by the City ofOklahoma City, the Current Land Use Category is the “basic level of generalization (smallestnumber of categories) made by OKC Planning [Department] based on the county’s occupancydescription field.”

The table below summarizes the classification of the Current Land Use Category to one of thefive land use groupings:22

Current Land UseCategory

Land Use GroupingsResidential Commercial Mixed Use Exempt Vacant

Church XCommercial XCommercial - Parking XCultural XEducation XEntertainment X XGovernment XHospital XHospitality XIndustrial XMixed Use XOffice XParking XRecreation XResidential XRetail XUndeveloped XUtility X

The classification of the land use grouping exempt involved additional criteria that supersedesthe Current Land Use Category. If the property is designated an historic landmark in thedataset, then it is exempt. Also, if the data field Account Type indicates exempt, partial exempt,or public service, then the property is designated exempt.


AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX CC.. NNOONN--AASSSSEESSSSEEDD PPRROOPPEERRTTYY CCAATTEEGGOORRIIZZAATTIIOONN

As noted in an earlier draft of this assessment report, a large portion of the 2013Recommended Route Framework benefit area – representing about one-third of the totalmapped area comprising 546 acres of identified tax lots – consisted of parcels for which I:Lcannot be calculated because the parcel has no land value in the GIS dataset provided by theCity of Oklahoma City. This dataset is adjusted somewhat to reflect MAPS projects anticipatedfor non-assessed status as well. To more clearly portray Non-Assessed Properties, this singlecategory of properties (with no I:L ratio) has been divided into three sub-categories:

Major Public Facilities – exempt properties occupied by existing major public facilities Non-Assessed Opportunity Site – larger sites where redevelopment or reuse could

reasonably occur prior to 2027 Other Non-Assessed – other exempt properties not identified as either Major Public

Facilities or Opportunity Sites and which are viewed as generally unlikely to beredeveloped through the 2027 forecast period of this analysis

Process for Categorization. A two-step process was taken to categorize non-assessedproperties. As a first step, sites with existing major public buildings/facilities, schools, andhospitals were identified through review of aerial photos. Sites identified in the Midtownproperties with the I:L Likelihood of Redevelopment map prepared by Butzer GardnerArchitects were also incorporated. This filtered out at least 80% of the non-assessed properties(reported in the April draft) that would be least likely to redevelop in the near-term without anyattempt to assert what is a redevelopment opportunity and what is not. These parcels werelabeled as “Major Public Facilities” with the least likelihood for redevelopment in the next 20years.

The second step taken involved a round of telephone consultation with staff from COTPA, TheAlliance, Downtown OKC, and OKC City Planning department to identify the larger non-assessedparcels for which redevelopment or reuse could reasonably be expected. These propertiesdiffer from the planned streetcar development project sites in that they may or may not have aspecific project identified to date.

Overview of Parcel Revision Notes. Two general notes are indicated by way of overview:

To avoid splitting tax lot parcels where conflicting uses exist, the preponderance of usefor a particular parcel was the determining factor in designation.

There were instances where a building is on one tax parcel and the associated (non-assessed) parking lot is on another. If the parking lot is deemed as critical to function ofthe building use, then it is considered as “Other Non-Assessed”. Criteria to determine aparking lot as critical to an adjoining building use included common ownership (for boththe parking lot and building) or supplemental information as provided by the agencyreviewers. Otherwise, the parking is considered a “Non-Assessed Opportunity Site”.


AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX DD.. RREEGGIIOONNAALL && DDOOWWNNTTOOWWNN BBAASSEE CCAASSEE FFOORREECCAASSTTSS

Forecasts of future development potential in downtown Oklahoma City have relied on priorregional forecasting prepared by the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG) aspart of the Oklahoma City Area Regional Transportation Study (OCARTS). OCARTS forecasts aremade by Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs), which cover about 95% of the population of thesix-county Oklahoma City metropolitan region. Within the metro region, there are 2,450identified TAZs – including 324 TAZs within the downtown study area for this analysis.

The currently available OCARTS projections span the period 2005-35. A preliminary (April 2013)draft of this report interpolated results of this 30-year forecast to estimate a pro-rata share ofdevelopment that could be expected within the geographies of the OCARTS region, downtownstudy area, 2013 Recommended Route Framework (disaggregated by zone and segment) andC2S benefit areas over a 10-year (2017-27) portion of this longer term planning horizon.

In reviewing this earlier draft of the land use and economic development assessment, itbecame apparent that recent development activity in the downtown area has been occurring ata substantially more rapid pace than previously forecast through the OCARTS process. OCARTSforecasts are now in the process of being updated, but are not yet available.

To provide preliminary direction for this analysis, Jacobs Engineering convened a group ofregional and local modeling experts from ACOG, the City of Oklahoma City, COTPA, The Alliancefor Economic Development and Downtown OKC to identify a reasonable set of provisionalforecasting assumptions. The following summary revisions were made with respect to forecastsfor housing, population and employment:

The working group provided a shape file of housing data points to merge with the initial2005 data in 36 downtown TAZs to arrive at an adjusted 2017 base housing estimate.

The population forecast for downtown TAZs is derived from the housing forecast,assuming average household size of 2.04 persons per unit.

Employment is adjusted for 61 downtown TAZs to an average growth rate of 0.7% peryear over the full 2005-35 time period (albeit with a 0.4% annual job loss indicated from2005-10), subsequent accelerated growth rate of 1.7% per year from 2010-17, and thenprovisional annualized growth rate of 1.3% from 2017-27. For all other downtown TAZs(263 TAZs), employment growth is forecast at a constant 0.7% rate over the full forecasthorizon of 2005-35.

As a result of these revisions, downtown study area forecast housing and employment growthfor the 2017-27 time period increases by about 80% as compared with unadjusted OCARTSprojections. For the 2013 Route Framework, housing construction is close to 2.8 times greaterand employment growth about 60% above that of the unadjusted OCARTS forecast. Regionalforecast estimates remain unchanged from the currently adopted OCARTS forecast. Detailedresults of these forecast modifications are indicated by the chart on the following page.


Figure 16. TAZ-Based Forecast Scenario (Without Streetcar to 2017)

Forecast Metric Forecast Forecast(& Geographic Coverage) 2005 2017 2027 # % AAGRPopulation2013 Route Framework 2,065 8,899 10,626 1,727 19% 1.8%

Zone A 560 3,361 4,284 923 27% 2.5%Zone B 1,505 5,538 6,342 805 15% 1.4%

Core to Shore Segment 364 1,447 2,434 987 68% 5.3%

Downtown Study Area 6,494 14,496 17,842 3,346 23% 2.1%Model Region (OCARTS Area) 1,076,258 1,230,866 1,359,706 128,840 10% 1.0%

Housing Units2013 Route Framework 1,185 4,362 5,209 847 19% 1.8%

Zone A 458 1,648 2,100 452 27% 2.5%Zone B 727 2,714 3,109 395 15% 1.4%

Core to Shore Segment 129 709 1,193 484 68% 5.3%

Downtown Study Area 2,423 7,106 8,746 1,640 23% 2.1%Model Region (OCARTS Area) 461,133 525,274 578,724 53,450 10% 1.0%

Employment2013 Route Framework 30,216 34,881 38,438 3,558 10% 1.0%

Zone A 21,167 23,990 26,342 2,352 10% 0.9%Zone B 9,050 10,891 12,096 1,206 11% 1.1%

Core to Shore Segment 1,965 2,137 2,291 154 7% 0.7%

Downtown Study Area 37,846 42,940 47,438 4,497 10% 1.0%Model Region (OCARTS Area) 578,306 667,504 741,836 74,332 11% 1.1%

Base Yr 2017-27 Change

Notes: AAGR denotes average annual growth rate. Forecasts are aggregated from Transportation AnalysisZones (TAZs). The without streetcar (base case) scenario utilizes 2017-2027 forecast results. Datafrom this base case is used with Figures 13-14 in the main body of this report.

Source: COTPA, ACOG, the City of Oklahoma City, The Alliance, Downtown OKC, Greater Oklahoma CityChamber of Commerce, Jacobs Engineering, and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. Updated as of August2013.


AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX EE.. TTHHEE SSTTRREEEETTCCAARR--EECCOONNOOMMIICC DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT NNEEXXUUSS

Because many of the development effects from the legacy streetcar systems have played outover decades, it is to more recent system re-starts that this assessment turns for data oncontemporary development leveraged with streetcar investment.

Contemporary Streetcar & Economic Development ExperienceRenewed experience with streetcar is so recent that documentation of the relationshipbetween streetcar investment and urban development has yet to be extensively researchedand quantified. For purposes of calibrating this development assessment, the most extensivemulti-city case study research conducted to date has been by the Brookings Institution for threecities that have made recent streetcar investments – Portland, Seattle, and Tampa.

Of the four metro regions considered, Oklahoma City has the smallest metro population with anestimated 1.25 million residents as of the 2010 Census. The other metro regions areconsiderably larger – at 2.2 million (Portland), 2.9 million (Tampa) and 3.7 million (Seattle). Asof 2011, Oklahoma City is the 43rd largest metro area in the U.S., up from 44 a year earlier in2010.

For comparative purposes, the following chart compares actual and projected populationgrowth rates for the metro area encompassing the Oklahoma City communities with thesethree other metro case study regions. Shown are annual average population growth rates in 5-year increments as realized since 1990 and forecast forward to 2035.

The rate of population growth for the Oklahoma City metro area was well below that of thecomparison metro regions in the 1990s, moving more into line with that of the comparables inthe 2000-10 decade. Looking forward, OKC is also forecast to experience population growthsimilar to that of the comparison metro regions, with the possible exception of the 2010-15period for which greater variation in forecast expectations are noted – although the OKCforecast may prove to be unduly conservative based on recent population growth experience.

The Brookings report includes a comparison of property valuation gains within study areas mostdirectly benefitted by streetcar investment. Results are compared with value gains experiencedcitywide (with detailed tabular documentation provided at the end of this Appendix).

Overall, the Brookings study observes that a major benefit of these three streetcar projects hasbeen the “ability to connect places that were not connected before.” In effect, “the streetcarbecame the connective tissue and organizing principle for growth in an area.”

A related finding was that “underdeveloped property generates the most significant increase invalue because of its malleability and potential for change.” As a result, properties that had beenvacant or underutilized experienced more rapid valuation gains than those with substantialexisting development.


Figure 17. Comparative Case Study Metro Area Population Growth Rates

Note: Rates of growth shown are as an average annual growth rate.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Oklahoma Department of Commerce, Puget Sound Regional Council, Bureau of

Economic & Business Research, Metro, and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC.

When considered by city, the following added observations are noted:

Portland experienced the most rapid increases in raw land valuation – with the streetcarpremium shown by valuation gains three times the citywide average. Condo/rental,commercial, and existing single-family properties also benefitted at ratios well abovecitywide averages, albeit with delayed results for existing residential as the benefits ofenhanced streetcar accessibility and appeal take time to be more clearly demonstrated.

Seattle experienced increases in raw land values at more than double the rate ofvaluation increase citywide. Streetcar proved to be a particularly important catalyst forbioscience and office related development near Lake Union, as well as for residentialand mixed use activity.

Tampa experienced the strongest gains in valuation (relative to citywide experience) forhotel and multi-family properties. More so than for Portland and Seattle, Tampa’sstreetcar investment was intended as a catalyst for increased tourism activity. As aresult, the Channelside District, situated in a prime location with substantialunderutilized property close to downtown, realized strong valuation gains. Bycomparison, lower rates of valuation increase were experienced in Ybor City at the endof the line, with less vacant land and already established existing commercialdevelopment ranging from night clubs to auto service and independent retail uses.


Figure 18. With Streetcar Development Comparison – Portland, Seattle, Tampa

Seattle Tampa(1997-2003) (2003-2008) (2003-2008) (2002-2008)

System CharacteristicsLength of Line (miles) 2.4 (initial line) 2.6 2.4Year Completed 2001 2007 2002Ridership per Day 1,000 1,000Cost ($ millions) $54.5 $52.1 $57.6Cost / Mile $22.7 $20.0 $24.0

Streetcar District ExperienceSingle Family A+D (< 0.5 acres) 44.19% 95.43% 58.68%Single Family A+D (> 0.5 acres) 97.54%Multi-Family (Condos / Rental) 56.75% 94.41% 51.10% 117.94%Commercial 103.49% 62.82%Mixed Use 84.96% 93.97%Office 57.76% 76.37%Retail 61.10% 81.84%Industrial 97.55% 59.57% 52.57% 105.99%Hotel 51.89% 78.46%Raw Land 112.38% 101.00% 123.12% 166.38%

City-Wide ExperienceSingle Family A+D (< 0.5 acres) 34.28% 75.61% 0.00% 84.67%Single Family A+D (> 0.5 acres) 28.90% 76.23% 0.00%Multi-Family (Condos / Rental) 38.09% 58.04% 48.30% 92.48%Commercial 40.94% 62.82%Mixed Use 49.82% 122.00%Office 44.38% 112.51%Retail 46.07% 95.95%Industrial 68.44% 53.77% 44.54% 115.88%Hotel 45.58% 43.58%Raw Land 36.92% 57.10% 53.14% 227.24%

Streetcar Premium (Difference)Single Family A+D (< 0.5 acres) 9.91% 19.82% -- -25.99%Single Family A+D (> 0.5 acres) 68.64% -- -- --Multi-Family (Condos / Rental) 18.66% 36.37% 2.80% 25.46%Commercial 62.55% 0.00% -- --Mixed Use -- -- 35.14% -28.03%Office -- -- 13.38% -36.14%Retail -- -- 15.03% -14.11%Industrial 29.11% 5.80% 8.03% -9.89%Hotel -- -- 6.31% 34.88%Raw Land 75.46% 43.90% 69.98% -60.86%

Streetcar Premium (Ratio including Base Year)Single Family A+D (< 0.5 acres) 1.07 1.11 -- 0.86Single Family A+D (> 0.5 acres) 1.53 -- -- --Multi-Family (Condos / Rental) 1.14 1.23 1.02 1.13Commercial 1.44 1.00 -- --Mixed Use -- -- 1.23 0.87Office -- -- 1.09 0.83Retail -- -- 1.10 0.93Industrial 1.17 1.04 1.06 0.95Hotel -- -- 1.04 1.24Raw Land 1.55 1.28 1.46 0.81

% Valuation Change (by Case Study City)Portland

Source: The Brookings Institution, Value Capture and Tax-Increment Financing Options for StreetcarConstruction, June 2009, as adapted by E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC.


Case Study - Portland Streetcar ExperienceIn 2001, Portland opened a new Central City streetcar line through the city’s Downtown area(west of the Willamette River). In addition to serving the Downtown and adjoining PearlDistrict, successful extensions todate have been made toPortland’s established NorthwestDistrict and to the rapidlyredevelopment South Waterfrontdistrict. Portland’s Central Cityline represents the first modernstreetcar system built in America.

Initial Post-StreetcarExperience. Separate, in-depthresearch of the post-streetcarinvestment and developmentexperience in Portland wasconducted in 2005 by E. D. Hovee& Company, LLC.23

Results of this detailed parcel-based analysis for one citycorrespond with results of thethree-city Brookings study. ThisPortland-specific analysisspecifically notes the role ofstreetcar investment as acatalyst both to re-orient wheredevelopment occurs and tofacilitate a more urban (orhigher density) scale ofdevelopment. Key findings ofthe research were as follows:

The Portland Streetcarhas served to connectand stimulate new usesand economic vitalityextending from NW 23rd

Street through the PearlDistrict to downtown’sWest End and PortlandState University, further

Source: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC, Portland StreetcarDevelopment Impacts, prepared for Portland Streetcar,Inc. November 2005.

1 block2 blocks

3 blocks3+ blocks

Pre 1997 development

Post 1997 development0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Pre 1997 development Post 1997 development

Distribution of New Developmentby Distance from Streetcar

Source: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC, Portland StreetcarDevelopment Impacts, prepared for Portland Streetcar,Inc. November 2005.

Density of Development byDistance to Streetcar

1 block2 blocks

3 blocks3+ blocks

Pre 1997 development

Post 1997 development0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Pre 1997 development Post 1997 development


extended to the South Waterfront. After streetcar investment was secured, lots within one block of streetcar captured 55%

of all new development within neighborhoods through which streetcar passed. Pre-streetcar (prior to 1997), these same blocks represented less than 20% of the totalbuilding inventory in the downtown/Pearl District area. Taken together, propertiessituated within three blocks of the Portland Streetcar went from 47% of areadevelopment pre-1997 to 75% post-1997 with streetcar.

There also has been a demonstrated relationship between the density of post-streetcardevelopment and proximity to the streetcar line – with much greater levels of density indevelopment taking place near the line. Within one block of the streetcar line, post-streetcar development has achieved nearly 90% of the floor area ratios (FARs) thezoning allowed. The ratio of development actually experienced in relation to zoneddevelopment capacity steadily decreased as distance from streetcar increased – to only43% of allowed FAR for new development situated more than three blocks fromstreetcar.

Along with streetcar, key factors affecting the location, pace and scale of recent CentralCity residential, office, retail and mixed use projects have included public-privatedevelopment agreements with major property owners and consolidated land ownership– both of which accompanied the first wave of development activity along thealignment. Downtown and Pearl District development that was experienced post-streetcar to 2004 within three blocks of the installed Portland Streetcar system has beenthree times the previously zoned capacity of development.

Also noted with the Portland analysis was that sites within one block of streetcar experienced a5.8% rate of average annual increase to the existing building stock (over a 7-year period) withnew construction versus a 1.0% rate of increase at a distance of more than three blocks fromthe streetcar alignment.

Updated Post-Recession Experience. For Portland, staying the course is continuing toyield economic development benefits despite a slower pace of economic activity to datethrough the 2007-09 recession and beyond. In September 2012, Portland Streetcar service wasextended to the eastside of the Willamette River (opposite the historic downtown core), as thefirst FTA Small Starts funded streetcar project in the nation.

Through the FTA application process, forecasts were provided of anticipated transit supportivedevelopment including committed projects. Four years later with 2012 actual project opening,the total number of eastside development projects and dollar volume is currently somewhatless than it was when the project was being planned.

However, the number of eastside residential projects and total units is much greater thanpreviously planned – indicating strong if not resurgent residential multi-family demand foryoung urban professionals. A significant post-recession shift has been in residential producttype, from condominium to apartment development.


Planned commercial space on the books as of 2012 remains impressive, even though jobrecovery nationally and regionally has continued at relatively modest levels. However, renewed(if not stronger than pre-2008) commercial interest can be expected as job growth intensifies,especially for creative service employment in urban flex buildings just across the WillametteRiver from the established downtown core.

Multi-family rental housing development has also emerged as a major driver of renewed corearea investment confidence in the last 2-3 years. As has been increasingly realized by Portland’swestside Pearl District, strong commercial retail and office development interest has tended tofollow the urban residential pioneers.

Of added note is that planned project activity is again robust on Portland’s westside which hasalready experienced substantial public-private investment extending back to initial introductionof streetcar service in 2001. This reflects the ongoing TOD appeal for urban residential andemployment uses together with the added incentive of increased streetcar frequencyaccompanying expanded loop service.


AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX FF.. DDEETTAAIILLEEDD SSTTRREEEETTCCAARR ZZOONNEE && SSEEGGMMEENNTT DDAATTAA TTAABBLLEESS

Figure 19. 2013 Framework Segment Existing Condition Allocations (as of 2011)Core to Shore

Zone A Zone B Total Area2011 Existing Conditions Estimate

Residential 642,500 756,800 1,399,300 78,400Commercial 12,055,800 2,731,700 14,787,500 741,200Tax Exempt 2,463,800 1,710,600 4,174,400 23,000Total Building Sq Ft 15,162,100 5,199,100 20,361,200 842,600

2011-17 Added Development EstimateResidential 1,021,000 2,033,900 3,054,900 1,067,600Commercial 796,700 329,500 1,126,200 47,800Tax Exempt 7,200 194,900 202,100 -Total Building Sq Ft 1,824,900 2,558,300 4,383,200 1,115,400

2017 Forecast Conditions EstimateResidential 1,663,500 2,790,700 4,454,200 1,146,000Commercial 12,852,500 3,061,200 15,913,700 789,000Tax Exempt 2,471,000 1,905,500 4,376,500 23,000Total Building Sq Ft 16,987,000 7,757,400 24,744,400 1,958,000

Base Case Scenario (w/o Streetcar)Residential 452,000 435,000 887,000 810,000Commercial 1,328,000 431,000 1,759,000 86,000Tax Exempt 12,000 255,000 267,000 -Total Building Sq Ft 1,792,000 1,121,000 2,913,000 896,000

With Streetcar ScenarioResidential 4,050,000 1,431,000 5,481,000 1,954,000Commercial 3,332,000 510,000 3,842,000 600,000Tax Exempt 682,000 302,000 984,000 134,000Total Building Sq Ft 8,064,000 2,243,000 10,307,000 2,688,000

With Streetcar "Premium"Residential 3,598,000 996,000 4,594,000 1,144,000Commercial 2,004,000 79,000 2,083,000 514,000Tax Exempt 670,000 47,000 717,000 134,000Total Building Sq Ft 6,272,000 1,122,000 7,394,000 1,792,000

2027 Ending Development Inventory (with Streetcar)Residential 5,713,500 4,221,700 9,935,200 3,100,000Commercial 16,184,500 3,571,200 19,755,700 1,389,000Tax Exempt 3,153,000 2,207,500 5,360,500 157,000Total Building Sq Ft 25,051,000 10,000,400 35,051,400 4,646,000

Current & ForecastDevelopment by Use


Source: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. The combination of commercial + tax exempt equals employment use.


Figure 20. 2013 Framework Segment Existing Condition Allocations (as of 2011)

Midtown Downtown Bricktown TotalLand Area (Acres)

Residential 7.7 3.9 4.3 15.9Commercial 90.5 92.7 46.9 230.1Mixed Use 4.5 1.8 1.5 7.8Exempt 56.4 106.7 30.4 193.6Vacant 41.6 34.2 22.9 98.7Corridor Total 200.7 239.3 106.0 546.0

Building Area (Square Feet)Residential 335,536 535,925 236,680 1,108,141Commercial 2,279,643 10,118,037 2,244,221 14,641,901Mixed Use 176,177 151,071 109,401 436,649Exempt 691,734 3,444,779 37,926 4,174,439Vacant 48 51 21 120Corridor Total 3,483,138 14,249,863 2,628,249 20,361,250

Density (Average FAR)Residential 1.00 3.20 1.26 1.60Commercial 0.58 2.50 1.10 1.46Mixed Use 0.90 1.88 1.69 1.28Exempt 0.28 0.74 0.03 0.50Vacant - - - 0.00Corridor Total 0.40 1.37 0.57 0.86

Market ValuationResidential $14,160,298 $41,792,788 $22,989,828 $78,942,914Commercial $125,418,214 $570,185,348 $173,758,598 $869,362,160Mixed Use $10,211,652 $13,659,806 $8,758,504 $32,629,962Exempt $18,665,138 $54,317,389 $3,878,552 $76,861,079Vacant $8,853,983 $16,336,668 $9,785,690 $34,976,341Corridor Total $177,309,285 $696,291,999 $219,171,172 $1,092,772,456

Assessed Valuation (Adjusted)Corridor Total $17,513,000 $76,605,000 $23,728,000 $117,846,000

Midtown Downtown Bricktown TotalDevelopment (Sq Ft per Year)

Residential - 5,300 21,100 26,400Commercial 8,900 86,000 58,200 153,100Mixed Use - 8,200 2,400 10,600Exempt 900 32,800 - 33,700Corridor Total 9,800 132,300 81,700 223,800

Existing CorridorConditions (2011)

2013 Recommended Route Framework (by Segment)

Average AnnualDevelopment (2000-11)


Source: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. Employment use includes taxable plus tax exempt uses.Segment totals may vary slightly from Zone A+B totals (in earlier charts) due to rounding as applied.


Figure 21. 2013 Framework Segment Forecast Allocations (2017-27)

Midtown Downtown Bricktown TotalBase Case Scenario (w/o Streetcar)

Building Area (Sq Ft) 1,112,973 1,276,239 523,789 2,913,000Added Residential 338,927 388,586 159,488 887,000Added Employment Use 774,046 887,653 364,301 2,026,000

Market Valuation $120,262,884 $137,883,461 $56,591,656 $314,738,000Taxable Valuation $12,450,501 $14,274,713 $5,858,786 $32,584,000

With Streetcar ScenarioBuilding Area (Sq Ft) 3,938,354 4,515,390 1,853,256 10,307,000

Added Residential 2,094,316 2,401,169 985,515 5,481,000Added Employment Use 1,844,038 2,114,221 867,742 4,826,000

Market Valuation $558,847,297 $640,728,020 $262,974,683 $1,462,550,000Taxable Valuation $57,168,602 $65,544,783 $26,901,615 $149,615,000

With Streetcar "Premium"Building Area (Sq Ft) 2,825,381 3,239,151 1,329,467 7,394,000

Added Residential 1,755,389 2,012,584 826,027 4,594,000Added Employment Use 1,069,992 1,226,568 503,441 2,800,000

Market Valuation $438,584,413 $502,844,559 $206,383,028 $1,147,812,000Taxable Valuation $44,718,101 $51,270,070 $21,042,829 $117,031,000

Midtown Downtown Bricktown TotalResidential Units

2017 Forecast Estimate 1,638 1,855 869 4,362

Added Units (2017-27):Base Case 324 371 152 847With Streetcar 2,044 2,344 962 5,350Streetcar Premium 1,720 1,973 810 4,503

Employment2017 Forecast Estimate 7,962 22,994 3,925 34,881

Added Jobs (2017-27):Base Case 1,360 1,558 640 3,558With Streetcar 3,227 3,700 1,518 8,445Streetcar Premium 1,867 2,141 879 4,887

Midtown Downtown Bricktown TotalIncremental Property Tax Revenue (10-Year Cumulative)

Baseline Forecast $7,854,384 $9,006,573 $3,696,443 $20,557,400With Streetcar Forecast $36,067,937 $41,352,509 $16,972,354 $94,392,800With Streetcar Premium $28,213,553 $32,345,936 $13,275,912 $73,835,400

Incremental Sales Tax Revenue (10-Year Cumulative)Base Case Scenario $11,616,189 $13,307,369 $5,466,442 $30,390,000With Streetcar Scenario $33,811,035 $38,764,932 $15,910,332 $88,486,300With Streetcar Premium $22,194,846 $25,457,563 $10,443,891 $58,096,300

10-Year Residential &Employment Analysis


Revenue Analysis(10 Years)


Development Scenarios(10 Years)


Source: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. Employment use includes taxable plus tax exempt uses.Segment totals may vary slightly from Zone A+B totals (in earlier charts) due to rounding as applied.


EENNDD NNOOTTEESS

1 This is a final report document that has been revised to address updated base case forecast data and respondto comments received from multiple project team and agency reviewers.

2 While a specific alignment for the 2013 Recommended Route Framework is not formally approved, thecurrently discussed “Zeta” option is somewhat longer than the LPA. With a larger benefit area, more propertiesare served meaning that benefits could be somewhat greater than indicated for the 2011 LPA. Otherwise, thesetwo options are fairly similar in terms of redevelopment potential including Midtown, Downtown andBricktown segments.

3 Information for this development and funding analysis has been compiled from sources generally deemed to bereliable. However, E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy of information from 3rd partysources. Information is also subject to change without notice. The findings and opinions contained in this reportare those of the authors. They should not be construed as representing the opinion of any other party prior totheir express approval, whether in whole or part.

4 For ease of description. the term “2013 Recommended Route Framework” may be shortened to “2013 RouteFramework” or “2013 Framework.” Throughout this report, these terms may be used interchangeably.

5 Throughout this report, the term base case is intended to represent a 10-year forecast assuming that astreetcar system is not placed in service. In effect, the terms “base case” and “without streetcar” aresynonymous for purposes of this land use and economic development assessment report.

6 Source of this information and quote is the Metro Transit website www.gometro.org. As of February 1, 2013.7 Shelley Poticha and Gloria Ohland, Reconnecting America, “Why Streetcars and Why Now,” from the report

Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the Twenty-First Century, prepared for the American Public TransportationAssociation and the Community Streetcar Coalition, 2006.

8 Streetcar and heritage trolley information is provided by the American Public Transportation Association(APTA), website: www.heritagetrolley.com, as of January 2013.

9 Detailed case study documentation for Portland, Seattle, and Tampa is provided by a report prepared by theBrookings Institution in cooperation with Reconnecting America, HDR Inc. and the Robert Charles LessorCompany titled Value Capture and Tax-increment Financing Options for Streetcar Construction for DC SurfaceTransit, Inc., June 2009.

Less rigorous post-streetcar information is available in more anecdotal form for other cities with recentstreetcar experience, including smaller cities of Kenosha, Wisconsin (with streetcar service starting in 2000) andLittle Rock, Arkansas (2004). Both Kenosha and Little Rock use vintage trolleys and have focused streetcarservice to encourage tourism and visitor related activity. Reconnecting America’s Street Smart publication(2006) indicates that Kenosha’s system has been associated with $150 million of development investment, andLittle Rock with $200 million in just the initial years post-startup.

10 For example, OKC metro population is indicated by the U.S. Census Bureau as having increased by 1.4% from2010-11 and by 1.6% from 2011-12, both years showing population growth well above the long-term regionalforecast average.

11 These parcels without land value indicated include a wide range of tax exempt public and non-profit (includingchurch) uses. Properties without an I:L determination also include utilities (telecom, gas, electric, rail), hospitalactivities, private use in public ownership (e.g. a hotel), and some uses of not immediately determinedpublic/private ownership. See Appendices B-C for added detail.


12 This compilation of major downtown area projects is part of the Impact Analysis of Oklahoma City’s MAPS andother Significant Central City Investments report, as prepared for the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber ofCommerce by Larkin Warner (Oklahoma State University), and Eric Long (Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, asrevised in February 2009.

13 Source is The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, www.theallianceokc.org, February 2013.14 Data is from the Core to Shore Market Study (Draft Report), prepared by Economic and Planning Systems,

January 2007.15 More specifically, the with streetcar scenario assigns a development premium to the corridor consistent with

actual streetcar experience in Portland’s Central City (post-1997 streetcar development). Portland’s experienceis similar to that of Seattle and Tampa as documented by The Brookings Institution, Value Capture and Tax-Increment Financing Options for Streetcar Construction, June 2009.

16 For some properties, the City of Oklahoma City data provides a more specific characterization as to the buildingsquare footage allocations of mixed use buildings – as for industrial, retail and residential uses. However, thepredominant indication (for 83%) of mixed use space within such properties is simply as ‘mixed use’ with nofurther delineation. Consequently, for purposes of this forecast model, a use breakout of approximately 1/3 ofthe space to commercial (including industrial) and 2/3 to residential is assumed.

17 The most detailed retrospective analysis to date of development by distance to the streetcar alignment hasbeen conducted in Portland, covering the period 1997-2004 (with initial streetcar introduction includingdevelopment in anticipation of streetcar). There, the annual rate of development within one block of thealignment was approximately six times higher than that of all other property within the downtown core andadjoining Pearl district areas and 1.5 times higher within 2-3 blocks. Due to generally larger block sizes inOklahoma City, this has been recalibrated to a streetcar “bump” or development premium of 4.5 times basecase development at a one block distance and 2.0 times the base case at 2-3 blocks for the 2013 FrameworkArea.

18 With documented Portland Streetcar experience, the residential share of all development increased from 16%of building space within the streetcar corridor pre-1997 to 66% of post-1997 development – a roughly 4-foldincrease. Similar experience with increased residential development is noted for Seattle and Tampa.

19 With Portland Streetcar, just over two-thirds (68%) of new development occurred on parcels with currentimprovement to land value (I:L) ratios of 0.0-0.5 prior to development, 20% on sites with I:L ratios of 0.5-1.0,and 12% to higher value parcels with I:L ratios over 1.0.

20 On a preliminary basis, per square foot assessed market valuations that might be associated with newconstruction are as follows: $110 per square foot for residential and $80 for commercial use. Estimates areconsistent with market valuations applied in the GIS dataset provided by the City of Oklahoma City but do notnecessarily match actual development cost and or transaction values.

21 GIS data indicate that the market value of land currently calculates to $6.89 per square foot of FAR in thecurrently defined LPA alignment benefit area and to $7.54 in the C2S study area considered.

22 There are instances where more recent information on individual tax lot parcels influenced a classificationbeyond the Current Land Use Category. However, the majority of land use classification followed the criteriasummarized in the table.

23 The report cited is E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC, Portland Streetcar Development Impacts, prepared for PortlandStreetcar, Inc., November 2005. Specifically assessed by this study were questions of where development hasoccurred and density of development. These assessments were based on 1, 2, 3 and 3+ block distances fromthe streetcar alignment.

Documents

MAPS3 Oklahoma City Streetcar Economic Development … › assets › files › planning › Economic Developm… · 2 MAPS3 Oklahoma City Streetcar – Economic Development Strategy